Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Lone Parents

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of income-related benefits paid to lone parents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): In 1990–91 the expenditure was approximately £3·4 billion.

Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that less than one third of lone parents currently receive regular maintenance? If that is the case, both in equity and—given his answers—in the interests of the taxpayer, must not there be a greater effort to ensure that absent parents contribute and face their financial responsibilities?

Mr. Jack: In general terms, I can confirm that figure. I also confirm that only 23 per cent. of people on income support have their maintenance orders honoured. As my hon. Friend says, because absent parents do not honour their obligations to their children, the taxpayer has to make up the deficit, to the tune of £400 million a year. The Child Support Bill now in another place will deal with that problem.

Mr. McAllion: What is the annual cost of the tax cuts and other advantages that the Government have given to the rich? Does the Minister agree that the rich have received far more from the Government than ever the poor have, which has widened the gap between rich and poor during the lifetime of the Government? Does not that reflect the reality that this is a Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into areas more appropriately covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. However, to answer his question and to focus again on the subject of lone parents, in 1981–82—these figures are in 1990–91 prices—we spent £2·169 billion on benefits for lone parents, while by 1990–91 that sum had risen to £4·476 billion. That shows how high a priority we give to some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded.

Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with a battle between rich and poor but is about the fact that families on lower incomes who fall

within the income tax net have to subsidise fathers who abscond and leave their wives and children so that the state has to pick up the burden?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely correct that people on low incomes make their contribution to the £400 million to which I referred. The Child Support Agency, to whose establishment the House agree last Thursday, will be able to attend to that matter.

Mr. Allen: For many lone parents the long-term answer has to be a job, with adequate child care. Does the Minister accept that he offers a choice between keeping women out of work on low benefits and subsidising low-paying employers through family credit? Why do he and the Government continue to refuse to support a national minimum wage of a measly £3·40 an hour? That would give many people on benefits the two things that they need—a decent job at a decent wage.

Mr. Jack: That question confirms that the Opposition see little point in continuing with family credit as a benefit. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's words show that, in their view, withering on the vine has become total decay. The contempt with which the Opposition deal with the issue of the minimum wage is summed up by a quotation from their spokesman on employment, the hon. Member for sedgefield (Mr. Blair):
I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that the econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact.
Are the Opposition reducing people to econometric models? Is that the amount of care that they show? Our Child Support Bill will make access to family credit easier. Family credit is important, as the Opposition will know if they have eventually got round to reading examples 10 and 11 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which show precisely how child care costs can be met, to the advantage of the working parent.

Pensioners' Christmas Bonus

Mr. Atkinson: to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Christmas bonus has been paid by this Government every year since we took office in 1979. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it is paid to 12 million people each Christmas.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Christmas bonus will once again be paid this Christmas to every pensioner, by contrast with the performance of the previous Labour Government, who refused to pay it for two years running? Does she accept that keeping the payment level for some years raises the question of its viability due to increasing administrative costs? Will she review that level with a view to increasing it in due course?

Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that the bonus will be paid this year as in past years. It was this Government who made it statutory, rather than concessionary, as one of their first acts in 1979. That was a worthy successor to their first act, which was to introduce the bonus in the first place in 1972.
In considering any increase we need to remember that merely increasing the bonus by £1 would cost £12 million


and that to double it would cost £120 million. Bearing in mind the fact that the Christmas bonus goes to everyone who is entitled to it and is not a targeted benefit, we have to ask whether that is the wisest use of resources. At the moment we are targeting resources—for instance, in the recent packages worth about £280 million for poorer pensioners—and that seems a better use of this sort of money.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall that a few moments ago the Under-Secretary of State referred to a benefit withering on the vine? If the Christmas bonus were paid allowing for inflation, it would now be worth £59·17.

Miss Widdecombe: And it would cost us £700 million to pay it at that level. We are trying to use money to target poorer pensioners. It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise us when for two years they did not pay the bonus at all. It is better to pay it regularly and by statute than to go for ambitious uprating programmes and then fail to deliver for two years running.

Disability Benefits

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that disabled people and their representatives are consulted on the details of the two new disability benefits being introduced next year.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Disabled people have already been involved in testing early versions of the claim forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowance, with very encouraging results. We have now issued these forms to a number of organisations for comment, together with the draft regulations for the benefits and the first draft of the disability handbook which will be used by officials working on DLA.

Mr. Hannam: I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for responding to the need for full consultation with disabled people. I also congratulate him on the Government's record level of spending on the disabled.
In the consultation process, will my right hon. Friend take account of the representations about the extra costs facing disabled people for special diets and clothing, laundry and communications? When considering the development of the living allowance, will he take those costs into account and try to arrange for their inclusion?

Mr. Scott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments. We are determined to involve disabled people and the organisations that represent them as much as possible in developing the new benefits—we have already done that—and in the way that they are administered. That is working successfully.
I take the point about extra costs. I believe that in general our structure of benefits reflects the additional costs of disability. I should certainly be reluctant to go back to the complexities of the former additional requirements—but I note my hon. Friend's point.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter how good a benefit system is, it is important that it be accessible to those in need? What progress is being made on modernising social security offices and providing a much more sophisticated system for the future?

Mr. Scott: We are certainly making a great deal of progress with the introduction of the Benefits Agency and with the new system of district offices, both of which will improve the efficiency of our delivery of benefits. If the system is to be accessible to people they need information about it. I was especially pleased recently to be able to launch the national benefits inquiry line, which will significantly help disabled people to understand the benefits to which they may be entitled and how to claim them.

State Earnings-related Pension Scheme

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the forecast extra cost of SERPS into the year 2035.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Expenditure on the state earnings-related pension scheme is estimated to rise from nearly £2 billion in 1991–92 to £16 billion in 2035–36, at 1990 prices.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it crystal clear that any Government or party which sought to satisfy the funding of pensions at that level solely through state provision would literally be going for broke?

Mr. Newton: If to that prospective rise in costs were added the cost of some of the promises that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is fond of making, the costs would at least be doubled in 2035–36 and we should be moving into a pension system which I doubt would be sustainable for those to whom the promises were made.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend contemplate increasing the benefits for people who buy their own pensions? What would happen if by some misadventure we were not returned at the next general election?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question. The right course is exactly the one that we have been pursuing, which is to make sustainable promises about what the state will provide and to give maximum encouragement to people to build up their own occupational and personal provision. We have done that with huge success.

Mr. McAllion: Can we understand from the Minister's earlier replies on this issue that he is confirming that the Government will not implement SERPS and have changed the uprating of pensions purely to cut the social security budget because they are too mean to give workers in this country the kind of pensions that people receive everywhere else in Europe?

Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman puts too much weight on that point, he should reflect on the fact that if we followed the pension arrangements of virtually all other European countries, 2 million married women in this country would not have pensions in their own right. Our policies are to ensure real promises to pensioners that can be kept. We have done that and our record compares very well with that of the last Labour Government, which included the non-payment of the Christmas bonus for two years running.

Disability Working Allowance

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.

Mr. Scott: The introduction of disability working allowance will provide a real opportunity to work for up to 50,000 disabled people who would like to do so, but whose earnings capacity is limited.

Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disability working allowance will provide an effective bridge for disabled people between total dependence on benefits and the world of work in a way that is rather similar to the job that family credit has done for families on low incomes?

Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Disability working allowance will remove a rigid distinction in the present benefit structure between ability and inability to work. As people become increasingly aware of the opportunities that are available to them, many will take those opportunities. One of the most important aspects of the allowance is that people who avail themselves of the opportunity to go into work will for two years retain underlying entitlement to whatever disability benefit they were drawing beforehand. That should give them confidence to try out work.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this new and radical initiative, which offers the opportunity for independence and promotes integration of the disabled. Does he agree that it is far better to target resources on those who are in most need, in this case low-income families, than to make uncosted and fanciful promises, as the Opposition have done, which can never be fulfilled?

Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have a good record on incremental improvements in the benefits that are available to the long-term sick and disabled. We have made an increase in real terms of more than £7 billion a year to meet the needs of those groups and we have concentrated on those who need most help. I am sure that that is the right approach.

Mr. Tony Banks: Since we are talking about people with disabilities, may I raise a case that came my way this morning? It relates to a claim for attendance allowance in leaflet DS2(1990), which is straightforward. It is a good attendance allowance, but when trying to get hold of a DS1500 report from the local GP and from the hospital, my constituent encountered complete ignorance of DS1500 report writing. Has everyone been advised of the procedures, particularly those who will be approached by people asking for attendance allowance and for a DS1500 report?

Mr. Scott: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman has said and I should be grateful if he would send me details of the case so that I can follow it up. We are anxious that those who have to produce such reports are fully

aware of the necessary forms and how to complete them. We are conscious that there have been some difficulties and that is why, when we introduce disability living allowance next year, we shall, to a considerable extent, rely on the claimant's assessment of the effect of the disability on his life, supported by a carer, a general practitioner or some other professional so that we can substantially demedicalise the way in which we process a claim for benefit.

Mr. Bellotti: Will the Minister consider the following? He will be aware that fewer people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can do it perfectly well without reading. He will be aware, as the House is, that over the past 12 months, fewer people with disabilities have gone into real jobs and that training and enterprise councils have recruited fewer people with disabilities for training courses than ever before. Will he now consider extending allowances to those who go on training courses so that eventually they can be encouraged to go into real jobs?

Mr. Scott: I believe that the allowances that are paid —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Certainly not. The allowances should be attractive to disabled people. We are anxious that they take part in training schemes and avail themselves of opportunities for employment. I am also conscious that new technology will make it possible for more disabled people either to take jobs in places of work, or, increasingly, to work from home.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the aim of the Government's policy to improve work incentives, to get people into work and to eliminate poverty? Bearing in mind those three points, would not it be extraordinarily stupid to introduce a minimum wage?

Mr. Scott: That matter has been dealt with effectively in the House on a number of occasions in recent days. I understand why those who analyse these matters are convinced that the introduction of a minimum wage would destroy, not create, jobs. Our approach is much better. When I meet disability organisations or disabled people, I find that the vast majority are keen to take the opportunity of employment. The Government have, for the first time, moved to a proper partial capacity benefit.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Minister seen the all-party disablement group's briefing on these questions, with its strong criticism of the punitively high marginal tax rates that DWA involves for disabled people, leaving them with as little as 6p in the £1 of increased earnings? Is this not a fierce new poverty trap? The Government plan to save millions of pounds, as they have told me, by introducing the new allowance. Instead, why cannot they allow disabled people to keep more of their own earnings?

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when one introduces benefits that relate to people's earnings, there is a balance to be struck between having too steep or too shallow a rate of withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase. Under the system for DWA, if earnings increase, the income of disabled people will also increase. We have moved away from the over 100 per cent. withdrawal of benefit that operated under the Labour Government.

Pensioners (Income)

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have income from occupational pensions or savings; and what was the comparable position in 1979.

Mr. Newton: We estimate that in 1988, 82 per cent. of pensioners had income from either savings or from an occupational pension, compared with only 73 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Sims: Does not that figure give added weight to the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a few moments ago—that the best interests of pensioners are served by directing additional resources to those who rely entirely on the state pension, rather than on a general increase in pension benefits? Does not it also suggest that the best interests of pensioners as a whole are served by maintaining a stable economic climate and a low rate of inflation?

Mr. Newton: I entirely agree with the second point. As for the first, it is to assist those who are least well-off that we have focused additional resources on increasing pensioners' income support premiums in the past two or three years.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between the pension arrangements for Members of Parliament and directors of privatised industries, who give themselves vast pay increases on which their pensions will be based, and those for people who have only just entered schemes and will therefore receive very little?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all this talk of income from savings and pension schemes will not interefere with state benefits or with the annual increase in those benefits?

Mr. Newton: We have made it absolutely clear that, having fully and faithfully—a phrase which I have used before—uprated the basic state retirement pension throughout our period in office, we intend to continue to do so. I have always acknowledged that, although a growing number of pensioners have extra income of various kinds, a good many still have no such income. That is why we have increased income support premiums: we want to direct additional help to those people.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in the light of his answer, that now that more than 80 per cent. of pensioners receive additional income it is essential at times to talk of average earnings, rather than only of state pensions, as Opposition Members often do? That applies particularly to comparisons with other European countries.

Mr. Newton: I agree, but I know that my hon. Friend will accept that we should always remember that averages are averages and that they conceal the fact that some people receive less than the average. We should bear those people in mind.

Social Fund

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement regarding the operation of the social fund.

Mr. Scott: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the 1991 annual report of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the operation of the social fund, which was laid before Parliament on 17 July.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that some areas do not spend their allocations, while others, such as Leicester, do not have nearly as much as they need? As a result, people such as my constituent, Jayne Cooper, of north Braunston—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not understand. Question Time is the time when we protect our constituents from all the bureaucracy that the Government impose on them.
If I send him the details, will the Minister look into the case of Jayne Cooper and see what help can be given to this lady, who has been skewered by the fierce and narrow impositions placed on the use of the social fund?

Mr. Scott: Of course, I shall look at the case, if the hon. and learned Gentleman sends me the details. In both the north Leicester and south Leicester offices, all high-priority cases are being met and some medium-priority cases are being met in north Leicester. We are making arrangements to improve the method whereby funds are reallocated from offices with surplus resources to other offices that are under pressure.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Lancashire county council welfare rights sub-committee—of which my right hon. Friend may have heard—fears that, in future, now that Kendal and Barrow are linked with Lancaster in the same office, when the statistics go on to the mainframe computer it may be impossible to obtain those that relate to Lancaster. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that they can be singled out? Lancaster has been given an assurance this year, but it is wondering about the future.

Mr. Scott: I have no reason to believe that the introduction of a new system will in any way inhibit our ability to obtain such information.

Mr. Pike: Is not it regrettable that people who apply to the social fund are often refused a grant and are then refused a loan because their income is not sufficient for them to repay it? Are not many people in urgent need thus prevented from receiving the assistance that they need so much?

Mr. Scott: Very few people are refused a loan by the social fund because of inability to pay; but, when someone clearly cannot pay, other procedures can be brought into play. Indeed, many thousands who apply for a loan in the first place end up with a grant instead.

Mr. Harris: The old system of single payments led to massive abuse and had to be changed, but will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the administrative cost of the social fund, as evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security showed clearly that the cost of handling individual applications was very high?

Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend about the old single payment scheme, and I seem to have the support of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said recently that nobody liked the system of single payments, which was extremely complicated for both claimants and staff. Any system which depends on discretion rather than on an automatic formula and precise regulations for the


delivery of benefit is bound to be more expensive administratively because of the discretionary element involved in the decision-making process.

Mr. Meacher: What is the point of the Prime Minister unveiling a citizens charter today if, as last week's report of the social fund shows, 27,000 of the very poorest citizens in our society got no help because they were too poor to repay it? That is not a very small figure, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Will any of the 185,000 people who were denied assistance from the social fund, because there was too little money in a cash-limited budget, get any redress today from the citizens charter? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the social fund, the administration costs of which last year, at £77 million, exceeded the total of all the grants paid throughout the year, which came to only £68 million?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to trespass on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's ground—the citizens charter—of later this afternoon. I can say, however, that the social fund, with its element of discretion, has proved to be a much more flexible and effective way of meeting exceptional need and exceptional circumstances than the old single payments scheme, or its predecessor schemes.

Widows' Payments

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value in real terms of the £1,000 widow's payment announced in June 1985.

Miss Widdecombe: The widow's payment was introduced in April 1988. The current value of the payment at June 1991 prices is £789.

Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Lady agree that the widow's payment was announced six and not three years ago and that at that time the widow's allowance that it replaced was running at £50 a year, which would now be worth £72 a year, making the widow's payment not £1,000 but £1,450? Is it not a disgrace that the Government have allowed these almost invisible salami cuts against this most vulnerable group of people? Is it not about time that we had a widows' charter?

Miss Widdecombe: The reforms that we have already introduced and the changes that we have made to the widows' allowances effectively amount to a widows' charter. We have introduced reforms which direct benefits towards those widows who are older and who therefore do not have a work record and also towards those with dependent children. We keep the level of the widow's allowance regularly under review, but I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said in response to an earlier question. The allowance is payable to every widow. We have to consider the proper use of resources. It is better to direct them towards those in need, as we have done.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that this benefit, which has only recently been introduced, is much better than the death grant, which was laughable, and that its introduction is a credit to the Government?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. The death grant had long ceased to be a realistic figure. Benefits which provide immediate relief, through immediate payments, are very much to be preferred. Everybody with the necessary

contributions record will benefit from this payment. It is therefore designed to relieve immediate need in a way that the death grant did not manage to do.

National Insurance Contributions

Sir Bernard Braine: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the levying of employers' NI contributions on all earnings.

Mr. Jack: Employers' national insurance contributions are levied on all earnings except where an employee earns below the lower earnings limit. Following a consultation exercise, we have received representations from employers' organisations expressing opposition to proposals put forward by the European Commission which would result in contributions being levied on earnings below that limit.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of abolishing the upper earnings limit would be severe for many middle income earners, such as doctors, teachers and the like, who are absolutely essential to the proper running of our society?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend alludes to a very important point. He is absolutely right that people such as teachers and members of the nursing profession would be included in a proposal to increase national insurance above the upper limit, but let nobody imagine that would be just those people. Anyone with a wage of, say, £250 per week who received a Christmas bonus of a similar amount would find part of that bonus taxed under the Opposition's proposals. We have flushed out a tax on Christmas.

Social Action Programme

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the social security policy initiatives in the social action programme.

Mr. Jack: Of the five proposals in the social action programme for which the Department of Social Security is responsible, one has already been dealt with and the Government are taking a positive line in negotiations on the other four. We expect to be able to respond positively to the proposals on convergence of schemes, minimum income guarantees, occupational pensions and the schedule of industrial diseases.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warning that we are about to have the Christmas Adjournment, not the summer Adjournment.
Will my hon. Friend continue to work hard on those programmes? It is important that Britain is not seen to be objecting in principle to social programmes being discussed in the European Community, which is sensible. We want to ensure that application of the programme is based on national guidelines and does not cut across what would normally be a fierce national political debate between parties. That is what my hon. Friend should be saying to the Commission in relation to the programme.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the general line that the Government are taking. We much applaud the principle of convergence of social security schemes and acknowledge the need for common provision for social security benefits, but we stick hard to


the principle that the way in which the policies are worked out in each member country should be subject to the concept of subsidiarity. We adhere closely to that point of principle.

State Pension

Mr. Andrew Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension.

Miss Widdecombe: In recent months, we have received several representations on the level of the state pension from individual pensioners and from pensioners' organisations.

Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the state pension has more than kept pace with inflation, the great difficulty is that 750,000 pensioners receive only the basic old age pension and do not claim any income support? Will she see what steps can be taken to ensure that more of them accept their entitlement and claim income support?

Miss Widdecombe: All those who are entitled to income support should be given the necessary information. Even those who are unable to claim income support, not because they have failed to do so but because they are ineligible, are entitled to claim benefits such as housing benefit, community charge benefit and help towards national health service prescriptions. That fact should also be made widely known.

Mr. Tony Banks: What would be the pension for a couple and for an individual if the Government had not broken the link between pensions and earnings?

Miss Widdecombe: It would be substantially higher, and the value of pensioners' incomes would be substantially lower. The Labour party practised a link with earnings, but pensioners' incomes rose by only 3 per cent. During our term in office, pensioners' incomes have risen by 33 per cent. It is much more valuable to pensioners that their overall income should rise rather than that the state pension should be linked to something theoretical, which would cost employees and employers £7 in national insurance, would not benefit less well-off people and would not result in an overall rise in incomes.

Mr. Holt: Nevertheless, as the Government have pledged to equalise the state pension for men and women, would not one small step in that direction be for prescriptions to be free for over 60-year-old men as they are for women? Will my hon. Friend make representations so that that small category of people, whom I shall be joining in 10 days' time, will not have to pay prescription charges?

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impending entitlement. We are considering all aspects of equal treatment and we have those matters under review. Any retired person who is on income support or is just a little above it is entitled to claim help towards NHS prescriptions. As I have said, we are taking steps to ensure that that fact is widely known.

Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Lady, who suddenly seems to have forgotten her facts, confirm that if Labour's link with earnings had been maintained, the single pension

today would be £13 per week higher and the married couple's pension £21 per week higher? Will she also confirm that as a result of the abolition of that link, the saving at the expense of pensioners is no less than £26 billion? Will she reconsider the facts that she gave a moment ago? The state retirement pension under the previous Labour Government rose by 20 per cent. in real terms, whereas under the present Government it has risen by 2 per cent. Finally, will she confirm that the reason why occupational pensioners have done well in the past year is mainly the state earnings-related pension scheme, and that a single person retiring today on SERPS, which Labour introduced in 1975, would get a SERPS pension of an extra £40 a week?

Miss Widdecombe: Almost all the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. He did not manage to get right even his basic question on the increases that there would be if we had maintained the earnings link, although I must give him credit for having got it wrong in our favour. The actual change would have been £64·80 for the single person and £103·75 basic for the couple. It is not true that pensioners' incomes have fallen. We have increased expenditure on benefits for pensioners by 29 per cent. The hon. Gentleman, whose party not only failed to pay the Christmas bonus but ruined pensioners' savings through inflationary policies, is on very weak ground. Why go back to a link which did not benefit pensioners because the 20 per cent. rise was wholly eroded by the overall decrease of 3 per cent? Pensioners' savings fell, the value of their pensions fell and the value of their incomes fell—that is the hon. Gentleman's record and it is not surprising that he is ashamed to talk about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Royal Opera House

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the average total subsidy out of public funds paid for each seat for performances of opera in the Royal Opera house.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): In 1990–91, the subsidy per seat for opera performances at the Royal Opera house was £27–28. By comparison, the figure at Welsh National Opera was £33–69.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister explain to those of us who are having difficulties with the concept of citizenship why the citizen millionaire, Gerald Ronson had a state handout of £52 a fortnight ago when he attended the opera house with his wife, whereas a citizen who is homeless and 17-years-old gets nothing from the state and one who is unemployed and aged 24 receives the princely sum of £31 to last the entire week? Is that fair?

Mr. Renton: I will deal with the small part of the question which referred to the Royal Opera house, which falls within my responsibility. It is fairly obvious that the subsidy per seat goes very much more directly to those who sit in the cheap seats at the top of the house than to those who sit in the expensive seats at the bottom. It goes far more, for example, to those who pay £4 to sit in the upper slips. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that when I was at the opera house last week, I saw the right


hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the noble Lord Varley. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they were not sitting in the cheap seats.

Mr. Jessel: Does it weigh with my right hon. Friend and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that not only opera, but all the other arts and heritage, pull into Britain visitors whose spending on hotels, restaurants, shops and travel generates income, employment and a tax yield to the Government? Should not that and the possibility of a national lottery for the arts be taken into account?

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is obvious that performances at the great theatres and opera houses in London are attractive to tourists from both within this country and without. That pulls in a great deal of money, including VAT revenue on tickets. It is also noticeable that the subsidy for performances at the Royal Opera house is much less than that in Rome, which is more than double that of London, and much less than that in Vienna or Berlin. It is clear that if we were to decide in due course to have a national lottery, the proceeds of that could be helpful in, for example, restoring the fabric of the Royal Opera house.

Arts Council for Wales

Mr. Hain: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council for Wales to discuss funding.

Mr. Renton: I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time to discuss topics of mutual interest. I visited the Welsh Arts Council's offices on 2 May and met the chairman and staff for a very useful meeting.

Mr. Hain: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Neath-based West Glamorgan Theatre Company on its pioneering work in Welsh language productions, but will he recognise that it needs more funding, especially in view of the reductions in the centrally held funds of educational authorities? Will the Minister also encourage extra funding for the excellent Pontardawe music festival, which will be attended by 20,000 people on the weekend of 16 to 18 August but receives a derisory Arts Council grant of just £1,275, which would not even buy four seats in a box at Covent Garden? Does the Minister agree that our rich arts culture cannot survive on voluntary enthusiasm and dedication alone?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but it is also true that that culture should not survive on public subsidy alone. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade the local authorities in Wales to ensure that they, too, make their contribution to support the activities to which he referred. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that, following a series of constructive meetings with the festival arts organisers, West Wales Arts will be providing additional support. A joint action plan has also been agreed that will allow West Wales Arts to be more closely involved in the festival, particularly in its marketing activities. I wish the festival every success.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national lottery would help not only Wales, but other areas of the country? My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am a member of the Brighton Festival Trust, which raises a great deal of money both from

business sponsorship and from affluent individuals. However, that trust would be helped immensely if ordinary citizens in the street could subscribe, as in many ways they would like to, through a national lottery.

Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend says. I had the great pleasure of opening the Brighton festival a few weeks ago. At the moment we are set on the course of the Pools Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which will provide about £40 millon per year to help sports and £20 million to help the arts, which will be beneficial to both those activities. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth while in the long run to consider how a national lottery, if a great many people subscribed to it, could help arts festivals as well as the fabric of art buildings.

Mr. Fisher: When the Minister considers funding of arts in Wales, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will he consider conducting a survey of Welsh local authorities to see the impact of the poll tax on their arts and library budgets? A Labour party survey of the London boroughs revealed that more than £9 million this year has been squeezed out of local authority budgets by the Government's poll tax policies. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the courage to conduct such a survey in Wales to establish the facts and to see the malign effect that his Government's policies are having on the very local authorities that he is urging to back the arts in Wales?

Mr. Renton: Listening to the hon. Gentleman's nightmare prescriptions, I sometimes wonder whether, unlike Glasgow city corporation, he knows his art from his elbow. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that under this Government the arts have flourished up and down the country. The only difficulty at the moment lies with some local authorities—in Bristol and in London for instance—which are hesitant in matching the amount of money that I am contributing through the Arts Council. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having delivered the last of the lectures paid for by that well-known Labour supporter, Paul Hamlyn. He has become the paid piper of Hamlyn.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of using the millennium to triumph abroad the cultural achievements of this country. I agree with him about that, but his words would carry more weight if he learned how to spell "millennium" which has two n's and not one.

Museums Association

Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will be making an official visit to the 1991 Museums Association annual conference.

Mr. Renton: I shall visit the 1991 Museums Association annual conference in Newcastle tomorrow to make the opening address.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's plural funding policy for the arts has given museums and galleries much greater freedom, enabling them to be more dynamic and consumer conscious?

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. That is a point that I hope to make in my address to the Museums Association in Newcastle tomorrow. Our plural funding policy has enabled


museums to attract sponsorship from the private sector—for instance, from the Leverhulme trust to the science museum, the Wolfson Foundation to the British museum and Agnew's to the national gallery, all of which have come forward in recent weeks and enabled the museums to undertake a number of ventures, including redecoration, refurbishment and putting on new exhibitions, which they would not otherwise have been able to undertake.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, with the laudable exception of the British museum, more and more museums are now charging for entry? If they do not charge they threaten by suggesting a minimum payment of £3. That is having a direct effect on the number of children who can go to museums. Is the Minister not ashamed of the contribution that he is making to the poverty of many of our children's cultural life?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady's remarks are wholly misguided. As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) said when he introduced that policy, it has been left to the individual museum or gallery to decide whether to charge. Those who have decided to charge, like the natural history museum and the science museum, are now putting on remarkably exciting exhibitions to which children are going. I opened the science lab exhibition at the science museum last week, and it was filled with children. I suggest that the hon. Lady goes there herself to see just how wrong her remarks are.

National Gallery

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has yet made an official visit to the new Sainsbury wing at the national gallery.

Mr. Renton: I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new wing by Her Majesty the Queen on 9 July; prior to that I had an informal preview on 27 June.

Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Sainsbury wing is a triumph in the way that it displays the pre-renaissance collection? Is not the Sainsbury family greatly to be congratulated on its most generous patronage? Does that not show the way forward for private patronage of national collections to work together to the great benefit of the nation?

Mr. Renton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable act of generosity by the three brothers and it follows many similar acts of generosity by members of the Sainsbury family. The early renaissance pictures are extraordinarily well shown off in the new wing and many hon. Members might benefit from going there for a period of quiet contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ex-Prime Ministers

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what civil service facilities, and under what circumstances, are made available to former Prime Ministers.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Civil service facilities made available to all former Prime Ministers are physical protection advice and services on the same basis as for other public figures considered to be at risk; the use of an official car; access to the official papers of their Administration. Briefing and help from local posts may also be provided in connection with overseas visits. Those facilities are long standing.

Mr. Banks: What a wretched and ungrateful response that is, from a Minister who owes a great deal to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for all the promotions that he got out of her. When Ronald Reagan can get public funding in America for a library to house his comics, why cannot the former Prime Minister get enough money to set up her own foundation, the Margaret Thatcher Institute for the Promotion of Political Humility, or whatever it may be called? Why can she not have some extra staff to mop up the tears every time she bumps into one of the back-stabbers on the Conservative Benches, to push her eyeballs back in after one of those BBC interviews, or to switch off the polygraph after she has recorded her memoirs telling us the truth about the Belgrano and Westland? The Minister could do far more for one of the great political loonies of the century. When we are in control, we shall give her everything she deserves.

Mr. Renton: I very much doubt whether the commitment just made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be followed up by the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his extremely generous approach, and suggest that such generosity should also be made available to Lord Callaghan and Lord Wilson, who have not exactly been shrinking, blushing, quiet violets since they retired. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) might also benefit from substantially more secretarial services to help him with his speech writing.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the circumstances in which access is granted for a former Prime Minister to his or her papers? Is it a privilege or a right? Does it extend to members of his or her staff? Where is he or she given access to those papers—in the Cabinet Office or elsewhere?

Mr. Renton: I think that it is probably correct to say that it is a privilege rather than a right. Former Prime Ministers and, occasionally, former Cabinet Ministers from time to time request—and, as my hon. Friend will know, are given—access to official papers from their Administration for research purposes. Given the nature of the papers, it is prudent as well as courteous to offer the reader a room in the Cabinet Office to read them.

Dr. Marek: Which of the facilities granted to former Prime Ministers are also granted to ex-Ministers of the Crown? There is great general interest in this question. To what extent have Prime Ministers made use of the various facilities in the past?

Mr. Renton: I was referring specifically to facilities made available to Prime Ministers. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), access to Cabinet papers is sometimes given to former Cabinet


members when they request it. With regard to the new facilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it would be invidious for me to go into financial details in the House, but I expect that those facilities will be widely used by all five former Prime Ministers. In comparison with what is available in other western countries, the facilities here are small beer.

Public Bodies

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to take steps to ensure that the list of those being considered for service on public bodies adequately reflects the interests of women and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. I keep under active review the range of good practices currently recommended to Departments to ensure equality of opportunity for women and members of the ethnic minorities. The public appointments unit in the Cabinet Office is always keen to receive names and details of anybody whom hon. Members or, indeed, the general public feel would be suitable for addition to the list.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an encouraging trend and in the right direction for the Government to take? Does he also agree that there is a big difference between positive discrimination, which is unacceptable, and acting positiviely, which is what the Government are doing?

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that this is a good trend. The central list now contains more than 5,600 names—about one third of which are women, who are all well qualified for public appointment. I hope that the present trend, including the public nominating themselves, will continue.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the recently formed all-party race and community group, of which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is a respected officer, is concerned about the trends, not only in the sector to which the question referred, but especially in the civil service, where the numbers of people from ethnic minorities in the top grades have fallen in the past year? Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter?

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates a question just ahead of us on the Order Paper. He is not right to say that the number of those from ethnic minorities in the civil service has fallen—[Interruption.] The number of those from ethnic minorities throughout the civil service has not fallen, but increased. However, I have no doubt that a further increase would be welcome. It is for that reason that the Cabinet Office gives out policy advice about the employment of ethnic minorities.

Civil Service Secondments

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are currently seconded to private industry.

Mr. Renton: So far this year, some 250 civil servants have been on secondment to industry and commerce. In addition, 70 civil servants are currently serving as

non-executive directors, and a further 50 have been selected for short-term attachments under this year's excellent programme organised by the Whitehall and Industry Group.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome those figures, because the cross-fertilisation of ideas generated by those trends can only be helpful. Does my right hon. Friend expect a further increase in years to come?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I am sure that that will happen. The trend has been significantly upwards. One good aspect is that many civil servants are attached to customer-oriented industries, where they establish the right mood for next steps agencies—which in many respects serve as a curtain raiser for the citizens charter, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may shortly have a few words to say.

Women Civil Servants

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are now being made to ensure that women civil servants are able to maintain employment with the civil service during child-bearing years.

Mr. Renton: Departments and agencies have a range of measures to enable staff who so choose to combine a career with domestic responsibilities. They include flexible working arrangements, career breaks and child care provision.

Mrs. Currie: Am I right in thinking that the majority of civil servants are women, but that fewer than one in three of those going into the fast stream are women? Is it not in the interests of the nation as a whole, as well as of women, to have the very best people working at the top of the civil service which should include far more women than is the case now?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly it is a matter for women themselves—whether or not they are mothers—to decide whether they want to enter or to remain in the civil service. As my hon. Friend has said, more women than men join the civil service. To help them, we have introduced provisions such as career breaks and part-time working, which mean that many more women can return to the civil service after taking a break due to child bearing.

Next Steps Agencies

Mr. Watts: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what visits he has paid to next steps agencies to assess the morale of staff.

Mr. Renton: I have made several visits to next steps agencies, and have met many staff working there. From what I hear from chief executives, staff morale is generally very high.

Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of high-quality service to the public enhances job satisfaction for those working in executive agencies, and that the development of those agencies will play an important part in delivering the objectives of the citizens charter?

Mr. Renton: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.The purpose of next steps is to encourage executive agencies to provide a better service to the customer

through good management and better staff training. In many ways, that serves as a prologue or curtain raiser to the citizens charter.

Bank of Credit and Commerce

International

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) (by private notice): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about knowledge of, and understanding of, the operations of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International over the years before June this year.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House on Friday and indicated that the Government will commission an independent inquiry into precisely those matters. I am now able to tell the House that the inquiry will be undertaken by Lord Justice Bingham, and that the terms of reference will be as follows:
To inquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts; to consider whether the action taken by all the United Kingdom authorities was appropriate and timely; and to make recommendations.
All the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised today will be covered in Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry. He will have access to all relevant papers, officials and Ministers. Nothing and no one will be held back. I assure the House that any relevant matter of any sort will be made available to Lord Justice Bingham. The conclusions of the inquiry will be made public.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for responding to my request to make a statement. Is he aware that simply reannouncing the inquiry and the name of the person who will head it is not an adequate answer to the questions being raised by the public? Is he further aware that since that inquiry itself had to be prised out of the Government, it would be much more appropriate for the Prime Minister to give us now the answers which he can give us from his own knowledge as a result of having been both Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the 17 days since the BCCI was closed, it has become evident that in March 1990 the auditors—Price Waterhouse—reported that the BCCI was in near-bankruptcy and had repeatedly made huge non-performing loans, some to individuals who did not even exist, and secondly, that in October 1990 a further auditors' report stated that grave and widespread irregularities continued in the BCCI's banking, and referred also to fraudulent documentation in the bank? In addition, there is now substantial reason to believe that in January of this year a formal report was made to the Bank of England and to the relevant Government Departments that the BCCI was linked with terrorist activities.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Governor of the Bank of England told an all-party group of Members of this place last Thursday evening that he kept the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, fully informed of all developments concerning the BCCI? Is he aware also that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told hon. Members last Thursday morning that until he became Chancellor he knew nothing about the BCCI—that was the responsibility of his predecessor?
The specific questions that have previously been put to the Government but not answered must now be answered

by the Prime Minister. First, when did Ministers, including himself as Chancellor, first know of the very serious banking irregularities at the BCCI?
Secondly, when did Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor, first know about fraud?
Thirdly, when did Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor and Prime Minister, first know that the BCCI was being systematically used for the laundering of criminals' moneys and the funding of terrorism? These are—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is for the inquiry."] These are answers that the Prime Minister can give today.
Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether the decision to allow the BCCI to continue to operate after the receipt of the March and October 1990 reports was taken with the knowledge and the agreement of the Government? Why was the BCCI allowed to continue in operation after the Government had evidence that the bank was involved deeply in financing terrorists? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would indeed be strange if the Government were not aware of the repeated reports from Price Waterhouse of very serious and continued irregularities at BCCI, of the money-laundering cases in the United States of America and, particularly, of the information available from the security services about practices at the BCCI?
Does the Prime Minister not agree that no Government can be allowed to shift the blame on to officials, whether junior or senior? Is he aware also that neither legal nor moral obligations can be confined to the Bank of England? This is a matter of ministerial responsibility, and ultimately the responsibility of the Prime Minister himself. The small investors, the depositors and the local authorities that have lost millions of pounds have the right to full and honest answers, and they need to know which Ministers knew what, when they knew it and what action they took. They deserve those answers now.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is muck-racking, and he knows it.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Kinnock: There is certainly plenty of muck about, and I suspect that a great deal of it is on the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister must withdraw his remark. Millions of pounds have been lost by small depositors, small businesses and local authorities. We deserve better than that answer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

The Prime Minister: No one in my Government is seeking to shift blame. We have established an inquiry to determine where the blame lies, and we shall publish that inquiry. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman always rises on a point of order. I shall call him later.

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should again ask those questions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt with a number of them the other day, and the remainder are for the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an inquiry, and he has got an inquiry. All documents will be available, and all officials and all Ministers will co-operate with the inquiry. Nothing will be hidden. The matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised are matters for the inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman has twice shifted his ground in recent days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question in my way.

Hon. Members: Did you know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that there are many people outside this place who are very interested in what the Prime Minister has to say. He has a right to answer the questions put to him.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman called for a statement in this House, and that could have only two purposes—either to secure discussion on the Floor of the House of the very sensitive operations of the security services or to prejudice the results of an independent inquiry. If it is the first, the right hon. Gentleman of all people should know, because he is a Privy Councillor, that security operations are never discussed on the Floor of the House. I find it surprising that he did not seek a briefing on Privy Council terms—something which is always available to the Leader of the Opposition. If it is the second, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what I did and did not know. I did not see, nor would I have been expected to see, any of the audit reports that Price Waterhouse submitted during 1990. I was informed of the suspected fraud uncovered in a section 41 report only on 28 June this year. I had no previous knowledge of that.
I have established an inquiry and I have made it quite clear that it will be open. All evidence, all people—including Ministers and myself—will be answerable to that inquiry. I shall publish the inquiry, and then answer for it before this House.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is not it worth reminding the House and the country that the BCCI was not a British bank, and that many of the problems have arisen because of the difficulties of international regulations? Have there been any international consultations on this range of issues?

The Prime Minister: It is likely that, at the conclusion of Lord Justice Bingham's report, those matters will have to be pursued, but at this stage it would be unwise of me to pursue them.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Although the appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to chair the inquiry is welcome and appropriate, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will have the power to compel witnesses to attend to give evidence, that the inquiry will include in its remit inquiring into the activities of the security services, and inquiring into whether it is appropriate for the Bank of England to approve banks registered under the toytown banking laws of Luxembourg that guarantee secrecy to crooks and vagabonds? Will the right hon. Gentleman

confirm that if Bingham concludes that, if the Government or the Bank of England has not shown a responsible duty of care to corner shopkeepers, compensation will be paid?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about toytown authorities in Luxembourg come ill from a party which purports to be strongly European and I suspect that they will cause strong offence in Luxembourg and possibly elsewhere.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's substantive point, it will not be necessary to compel people to attend the inquiry. Those who will attend are Government servants or regulators. I have given to the House a commitment that they will all attend and give evidence—that includes members of the security services, if Lord Justice Bingham requires to see them.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not a fact that this House has imposed on the Bank of England a responsibility for regulating the banks, and that it is not the Government's task to do that? If there is a fault in the system, does it not date back to the codification of the bank's powers which was imposed by the Labour Government in the Banking Act 1979—which on Second Reading I warned would weaken the much more arbitrary powers which the Bank had held? Is it not appropriate that we should proceed via a public inquiry—a suggestion which I made a fortnight ago? Have we not just heard from the Leader of the Opposition one of the most cynical displays of political opportunism that we have seen?

The Prime Minister: I believe that each of my hon. Friend's points is correct. It is an undeniable fact that, under the Banking Acts, the Bank of England is the regulator and is responsible for these matters. The Governor of the Bank of England has made it wholly clear that he will co-operate fully with the inquiry, and he will undoubtedly do so.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like many others this weekend, I read a great deal about the BBCI's actions and the suspicions felt about the bank long before the recent revelations. Obviously, we accept that the right hon. Gentleman, as Prime Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, may not have known about definitive acts of fraud, but conversations and discussions take place all the time between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor and it would be astonishing if he did not know something about that affair. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have been informed about part of it.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the audit reports submitted by Price Waterhouse suggested that there was widespread fraud, which is a substantive point. I did not see the audit reports from Price Waterhouse; nor was I informed about them. As soon as I was informed, on 28 June, we saw the Governor of the Bank of England and the action about which the House now knows was subsequently taken. At no earlier stage was I given the information that the right hon. Gentleman implies that I was given.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there should be some sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition because of the excellent situation resulting from my right hon. Friend's G7 talks and negotiations? This whole point is meant to cloud those negotiations. Is it not odd that the


party that wants fully to support the Common Market is one reason why we have problems with the BCCI? Is it not odd that the Labour party is not willing to accept a full and independent discussion and inquiry, which will come to the truth without anyone being sheltered? How else can one explain the opportunism and muck-raking involved in raising this matter at this time?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised at that, for the reasons which I set out earlier. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me on Thursday about the benefit of setting up an inquiry without delay. For once, on this matter the right hon. Gentleman and I were in complete agreement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced such an inquiry on Friday. The Leader of the Opposition then denounced it, and today we have heard what he has subsequently had to say.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his proposed citizens charter, will deal with the growing menace, freshly illustrated today, of buck-passing Ministers in bank scandals?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman and his party will stop devising artificial reasons for preventing us from getting on to the statement on the citizens charter, they will find out.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will Lord Justice Bingham have the authority to investigate the manner in which so many people's misery has been shamelessly exploited for political ends?

The Prime Minister: The inquiry will be wide-ranging, but I should not imagine that Lord Justice Bingham will investigate that matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would it not be normal practice for security information linking terrorism and a banking house to be passed to the Prime Minister of the day by the security services?

The Prime Minister: As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that I shall not answer questions in the House on security. I reiterate what I said a few moments ago—hat any relevant material will be made available to Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry, and that the outcome of that inquiry will be published.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will the House accept, that although the BCCI has had a suspicious reputation for many years in banking circles, it was at the prompting of the Bank of England that the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi was persuaded to mount a refinancing of the bank to lead it back to the straight and narrow, and that when that proved to have failed, and fraud was revealed, when the Bank of England considered that it might have sufficient evidence to stand up in court it acted promptly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the job of the Government or of Ministers to pre-empt the Bank of England in such matters?

The Prime Minister: That is entirely right. The moment that there was evidence of fraud, the Bank of England acted very promptly indeed, and so did the Government.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North): How will Lord Justice Bingham be able to compel foreign nationals to attend his inquiry to give evidence?

The Prime Minister: This will be an inquiry into the regulators, not into foreign nationals.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As we are informed by the press that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is for ever dining or lunching in the City of London, is it not remarkable that he was not aware of the alleged—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman come to his question?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: —crime, and that the Opposition never once raised the matter, although they say that it was so obvious?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend makes his point pertinently in his own way. It is indeed a surprising omission, and I can confirm that, so as far as I am aware, I have received no letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not the case that none of the big City players or institutions have lost money in the debacle, because none of them has done business with the BCCI for many years, because of its unsavoury reputation? Why was that information kept within a small charmed circle and not made available to my constituents, who have lost their businesses and their savings?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to remind him that the statement was about the inquiry and not about the bank itself.

Mr. Leighton: Why was that information kept not only from my constituents, but, apparently, from the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: As you, Mr. Speaker, have just said, I have no knowledge of other banks' relationships with the BCCI. The inquiry will concern what knowledge the regulators had, when they had it and whether that knowledge was properly handled.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): As my right hon. Friend will have gathered from a number of questions today, there has been anxiety on both sides of the House about whether the approach of 1992 and all that follows from it will strengthen or weaken the controls over banks registered in places such as Luxembourg. Will the inquiry examine the impact that the European Community will have on such regulations, and can he assure us that it will strengthen them?

The Prime Minister: There are generally very high standards of regulation in Europe. Clearly we shall have to take account of them when we study the report—but these are matters that will need to be considered afresh in the light of the sophisticated but serious fraud that has been perpetrated by the BCCI.
Although people may regard it as entirely right, as I do, that the inquiry should take place, we should never overlook the fact that this was a sophisticated and detailed fraud.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the results of the inquiry will be published before the next election?

The Prime Minister: I shall publish the results of the inquiry as soon as Lord Justice Bingham presents them to me. I hope that he will be precipitate and that he will speed ahead with his inquiry. We shall put no impediments in his way.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will Lord Bingham be able to look into the way in which it appears that the BCCI has been able to do so much business with local councils? Will he be able to call a senior Labour councillor from Bradford, who was apparently selling for the organisation for a number of years?

The Prime Minister: I can answer for Government officials, for the regulators and for the Bank of England. They will all be available; others must answer for themselves.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. Furthermore, there is a debate on this very matter later today. I shall call for three more from each side and then move on. We have two other statements today as well. I call Mr. Bell first.

Mr. Bell: The House will accept that the Prime Minister did not see the auditors' reports by Price Waterhouse. May we take it that the terms of reference of the inquiry will be as we have heard them today; and will Lord Justice Bingham be able to look at the competence of a whole series of Ministers of the Crown, including the Secretary of State for Employment, who sent the letter to the wrong address, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who did not get the letter, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claimed that he had no knowledge of it, and the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also claims that he had no knowledge of it? Does not this go to the heart of Cabinet government and responsibility to the House?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that this was a serious fraud. The letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred contained no information previously unknown to the regulator, the Bank of England.
I have already answered the substantive parts of the hon. Gentleman's question several times, but I reiterate that it is clear from the terms of reference that Lord Justice Bingham will consider whether the action taken by the United Kingdom authorities was appropriate and timely.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the inquiry have powers to concern itself with the knowledge held by a certain number of investment brokers and with their relationship to the BCCI? In particular, will it be able to consider the amount of commission that they were paid by the BCCI to ensnare certain unwise local authorities—they never investigated the position—into investing in the bank?

The Prime Minister: I think that the Government may wish to consider the implications of the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I am not sure whether it entirely falls within the remit of Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a significant difference between the public publication of the outcome of the inquiry and the public examination under oath of witnesses before the inquiry? Why have we not had the latter?

The Prime Minister: For the very practical reason that I do not want to take any action that may prejudice criminal investigations by the Serious Fraud Office—there is a danger that that would happen. Given the seriousness of the fraud, I am sure that no one would want that.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The Prime Minister said a moment ago that all relevant information would be made available to the inquiry. Did he know that the United States authorities asked for information from the Bank of England some two years ago and that the bank replied that it could not disclose confidential information because of the Banking Act 1987? Did the Prime Minister agree with that judgment? If he did, and if that excuse is used at the special inquiry, does not that mean that the truth will never be revealed?

The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear, and I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman, that all the information required by Lord Justice Bingham will be made available to him. I understand that the American authorities are now satisfied with the assistance and information that they have had from us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called two Opposition Members, and I shall now balance that.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the City of London understands the need for an inquiry and approves of it, but that it does not understand and will not condone the specious private notice question put down by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the City of London will make up its own mind about that matter, and I suspect that it will agree with my hon. Friend.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will Lord Justice Bingham be empowered to investigate international bank regulation as well as our bank regulators?

The Prime Minister: I think that he may well make recommendations, since the scope of his inquiry may lead him to believe that it would be appropriate for him to do so. Where he does so we shall of course consider those and, if appropriate, take them up with other bodies as well.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not now. I again remind the House that we are to have a debate on this matter later.

Citizens Charter

4 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the citizens charter White Paper.
The Government have consistently extended competition to raise standards and to give the citizen wider choice. We have introduced privatisation and competitive tendering, reforms to give new choice in health and education, and measures to give new opportunities in housing. These have worked to the benefit of the consumer. The White Paper that I am introducing today will build on those measures.
Action will be expected from all public services on a number of fronts. First, I shall deal with standards. We will expect public bodies to publish explicit standards of performance and the results that they actually achieve. Targets will be set for improvement year by year. Secondly, on accountability, full, accurate information must be made readily available, in plain understandable language, about services provided. We will make it simpler to compare the performance of one body against another. That will put pressure on each to emulate the best and provide consumers with a basis for making choice. Except where their safety is threatened, public servants should no longer be anonymous. We will expect them to identify themselves to the public, by the giving of names on the telephone or in letters and, where appropriate, by the wearing of name badges.
Thirdly, in the area of redress, where problems occur people are entitled to an explanation, and to know what to do. Avenues for complaint should be well publicised and simple, and when that does not suffice, there should be clear routes to compensation or redress.
The citizens charter initiative will cover all our public services, as well as those large utilities which are now in the private sector. It is the widest ranging and most comprehensive ever undertaken by Government. It will involve more privatisation, wider competition, further contracting out, pay more related to performance, published performance targets—local and national, comprehensive information on standards achieved, more effective complaints procedures, tougher and more independent inspectorates and auditing, and better redress for the citizen when things go badly wrong. The citizen is also a taxpayer. Public services must give value for money within the tax bill that the nation can afford.
The White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. Nevertheless, it contains well over 70 specific measures to raise standards in public service. I shall set out some of the main measures in the White Paper, the first of which is on education. I commend to the House two old-fashioned concepts which are the benchmarks of success—reports and results. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Opposition, particularly those who sit on the Front Bench, that they really should give a lead and set an example to their Back Benchers.

The Prime Minister: They do give a lead—that is the point.
I repeat, I commend to the House two old-fashioned concepts that are the benchmarks of success—reports and results. From the new school year, parents will be

guaranteed a school report on their child's progress. Parents have a right to be able to discuss this progress with their children's teachers, and we shall ensure they know how to exercise that right. We shall also require schools to publish in standard format results achieved, and we shall ensure that tables comparing schools on a number of measures are published locally, and not just on exam results.
There will also be significant reform of schools inspection. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will be publishing detailed proposals later this summer, but I can tell the House today that there will be regular inspection of all schools, carried out with the help of independent people from outside, as well as inside, the education profession. Results of inspections will be distributed to parents. Tougher, more rigorous inspection will be the result.
I move, secondly, to housing. This Government have given new rights to millions of householders, but we are determined that those who remain in public sector housing should secure a better deal. For housing associations, there will be a stronger tenants' guarantee. For council tenants, we shall update and improve the tenants charter that we first published 10 years ago. We shall examine ways to simplify and to strengthen the procedures giving tenants a right to have small but urgent repairs done speedily. We are ensuring that they receive proper information on the standards of service that they can expect. For the first time, we shall consider bids directly from tenants on the worst run estates who want to form housing action trusts. No longer will the improvement of their estates be frustrated by the opposition of the local council.
We are particularly concerned at the low standard of management of housing. We shall therefore bring forward proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering into public sector housing management. The citizens charter will end, once and for all, the patronising of tenants by incompetent town halls.
Thirdly, on health, we have already introduced new contracts in the health service to raise the standards demanded of hospitals. Under the citizens charter, we shall expect publication of clear standards for patient care right across the health service, and we shall begin by taking two further specific steps for the benefit of national health service patients.
For out-patients, we shall require new procedures on the handling of appointments. This will mean that the practice of calling many patients to an appointment at the same time, which has been widely deplored, will be brought to an end.
For in-patients, there have been substantial improvements in the quality and quantity of care provided. Nevertheless, a minority of people still have to wait too long for treatment. We therefore propose that, from next April, guaranteed maximum waiting times for in-patient or day care treatment should be published. The initial focus will be on those treatments for which waiting lists are longest, and where the pain, discomfort and general reduction in quality of life are most significant. I have in mind hip replacement, hernia repairs, and cataract removals. Guaranteed maximum waiting times are being negotiated now, but could range from only a few months to over a year. If it appears that the treatment cannot be provided in the guaranteed time, the health authority or board will seek provision elsewhere, including, if appropriate, from the private sector.
Fourthly, I move on to transport. For road users, we will tackle the nuisance caused by road repairs. We will use new powers to make utilities digging up local roads co-ordinate their activity and complete work more swiftly. For large-scale road repairs, we will extend the use of "lane rental" incentives and penalties in order to reduce time taken for repairs. We will end the unnecessary coning off of miles of motorway when no work is being done. [Laughter.] I only wish that the country outside could see the Opposition Front Bench.
There are still too many long stretches of motorway without proper service areas. In order to speed up the provision of those facilities, we will end the present system under which the Department of Transport is solely responsible for identifying sites. In future, we will allow developers to take the initiative in selecting sites to provide the facilities that motorists need. We will reduce the delay in getting a driving test, and make it easier to book appointments.
The deregulation of coach services in the early 1980s has enabled a huge explosion to take place in cheap long-distance travel. Outside London, the deregulation of buses has brought in new operators and better value for money. In the light of that better service, we have decided that the time has come to deregulate bus services in London.
Travellers on railway and underground services have in too many cases been expected to endure sub-standard performance. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I repeat that those outside are very interested in hearing about these matters. Hon. Members should not interrupt the Prime Minister in this way when he is making a statement.

The Prime Minister: It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker—they do not care about customers.
Travellers on railway and underground services have in too many cases been expected to endure sub-standard performance. The Government believe that here, too, further competition is desirable. We therefore expect to set out later this year detailed plans to privatise British Rail. British Rail's monopoly of the network will be ended. We will also set up a new independent regulator to ensure fair access to the network and protect the customer.
The Government will expect both British Rail and London Underground to be more open about standards of performance and methods of redress. British Rail will improve its compensation arrangements. It has been asked, as a start, to develop a new scheme, starting with annual season ticket holders. For the first time, where service over the previous year has been poor, passengers will be entitled to discounts when their tickets are renewed.
The Government want to relate pay to performance in all aspects of public service. For example, on the underground and the railways, we shall expect records of punctuality and absenteeism to be taken into account, where relevant, in packages of pay for drivers, guards, signalling staff and others whose service impacts most directly on the public. Dedicated workers should receive a better reward than those who fail the public.
Fifthly, I turn to local authorities. Many of the measures that I have already outlined will help to improve

their performance. However, there are two further steps that I wish to announce today. We shall strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission. It will be empowered to publish comparisons which name local councils and education authorities. In future, they will also be required to publish a formal response to auditors' reports. We will also extend the scope of compulsory competitive tendering in local government.
Sixthly, in central Government we will promote more market testing, and extend contracting-out into new areas in the national health service, such as distribution, warehousing and non-emergency transport. We will publish a White Paper on this in the autumn. Government activities should not enjoy immunity from inspection and enforcement on such matters as health and safety. Except where national security is involved, all future legislation will ensure that Crown bodies are subject to the same inspection and enforcement procedures as others.
Seventhly, we have new proposals on the Post Office. We will ensure that clear standards for service to the public are widely publicised. A new regulator will be appointed who will arbitrate on complaints, monitor performance and advise the Secretary of State on setting standards and protecting customer interests. Here, too, we believe that further competition would benefit the public. We will therefore narrow significantly the level under which the Post Office has a monopoly for letter delivery. We will reduce it from the present £1 to a level much nearer the first-class stamp.
All these measures will bring direct benefits to our citizens, but we want to ensure that they have all the support that is needed in exercising the new opportunities the citizens charter will give. We will therefore act to strengthen the powers of the regulators of the public utilities on standards of service. We will ensure that the powers available to each will be brought up to the levels of the strongest. They will thus be able to set guaranteed standards and require compensation to be paid when those standards are not met. We will also enable them to required fixed appointment times for customers, for whom that is self-evidently important. We intend to end the annoyance caused to people waiting in all day for someone to call.
In the public services, effective inspection is the key to maintaining standards. I have already outlined our proposals for inspection of schools. The Government will also introduce an independent element into other inspectorates. As a first step, more lay members will be appointed to the inspectorate of constabulary later this year, and there will be a full review of the independence and effectiveness of the social services inspectorate. Detailed proposals will be published later this year. We will also be consulting on the introduction of a new concept, the introduction of a network of lay adjudicators. These will be people who can help the citizen to get a swift resolution of those small but irritating complaints which cause so much frustration.
Finally, the public are entitled to expect that essential services will not be damaged or interrupted by industrial action, which has not been put to the test of a ballot or which is unlawful in some way. At present, if the employer does nothing, the citizen is powerless. We therefore propose to amend the law. We will give a new right to individual members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the citizens charter.
This White Paper is only the beginning of the charter process. Over the next few months, separate charters for specific services will be published, and we will be introducing a new charter standard for quality in public services. Only those who can meet the high standards that the public expect will earn the right to display a new charter mark.
We will introduce legislation, wherever necessary, to bring about the changes proposed. In addition, to drive the reform process through, I will be setting up a special unit in the Cabinet Office, and I will be appointing a panel of independent advisers to identify new areas for action to help carry the programme forward. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that its first chairman will be Sir James Blyth, director and chief executive of Boots.
The citizens charter initiative will be fundamental to the Government's policies for the 1990s. It is a programme that will carry on through a decade. There is much that is good in our public services. They contain a fund of talent, energy and commitment. Our new measures will release more of those qualities so that we can raise standards up to and beyond the best that is currently available. The charter programme will find better ways of converting the money that can be afforded into even better services. I want the people of this country to have services in which they as citizens can be confident and in which public servants themselves can take pride. I commend the proposals to the House. [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: For 12 years, the Government have presided over, and often prompted, reductions in the standards and provision of public services. They are still doing so. Having heard the Prime Minister's proposals this afternoon, it is possible to conclude only that they are a mixture of the belated, the ineffectual, the banal, the vague and the damaging.
Where are the practical policies in this White Paper for the action that is needed to tackle our crumbling schools? Where are the practical policies to reduce hospital waiting lists, which are now 40 per cent. higher than when the Government took office? And where are the practical policies, to be implemented now, to make up for the years of under-investment in a transport system that is increasingly congested and increasingly costly? Where are the practical policies for dealing with the growing housing crisis—after 12 years of record high mortgage repayments, a cut of 80 per cent. in the number of houses built for rent, and a trebling in the number of homeless families?
Where are the practical policies in the citizens charter for reducing the number of people living in poverty, which has increased threefold in the lifetime of this Government? Why does the citizens charter not contain a commitment to a freedom of information Act? Why does it not improve access to legal aid? Why does it not provide necessary rights for the millions of disabled people in this country? What is there in this document, or indeed any other Government policy, to improve Government accountability to the people of this country? Where, for instance, is the costing of these proposals? The Prime Minister is sometimes interested in that aspect of things. Is this not yet another Conservative pig in the poke which will be unconvincing?
Will the Prime Minister accept from me that, although any action to improve standards of safety, performance and accountability is welcome, giving people some compensation for poor service is no substitute for developing good services? Where is the commitment to improved training for those working in and managing services in the public and private sectors? Indeed, where is there anything to improve standards of provision and service for the 14 million people who every year have cause for serious complaint about the standards of goods and services produced by the private sector? Where is the mechanism in the charter for improving quality in local services?
The statement, quite correctly, says:
The citizen is also a taxpayer. Public services must give value for money within the tax bill that the nation can afford.
What value for money did the Government give when they wasted £14 billion of taxpayers' money on maintaining a poll tax that nobody wanted? What compensation will the Government offer for that monumental act of waste and injustice?
Two months ago, the Prime Minister promised that his citizens charter would be a "revolution". What we have is not a revolution but a massive evasion. What is being offered is very little, very late, very limited, very slow and, after 12 years of a Government who have run down so many public services, very unconvincing.

The Prime Minister: What was unconvincing was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman talked about everything except what was in my statement. We know that customers do not matter to Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is the rambling rose of politics, but he certainly cannot stick to the subject matter.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of crumbling schools. In which education authorities is the worst education? Labour education authorities. In which housing authorities is the worst housing? Labour housing authorities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He talks of costing. He should have read the document and turned to page 38. He would have seen there the difference in value for money between the best and the worst local authorities, and the improvements that can be made within the increasing resources that we have made available. He should look also at all the detailed matters that I have announced in the document which will directly affect the individual lives of people at present facing frustration. They will find those frustrations removed and their quality of life improved.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about what he would do. He would do nothing. Labour opposed privatisation, opposed contracting out, opposed competitive tendering and opposed every increase in individual rights that we have introduced in the past 10 or 11 years. We want competition in postal services; Labour does not. We will extend performance-related pay; Labour will not, because Jimmy Knapp will not allow it. We will require education authorities to provide the information and education to parents which they want for their children; Labour will not do that and will oppose it. We will strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission; Labour seeks to abolish the Audit Commission. Labour can say nothing to us about public services. Wherever Labour is in charge, public services are a shambles. We are determined to ensure that that will not be tolerated any more.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to debate this matter. Today is a private Members' day, and no doubt these issues can be raised on the motion for the summer Adjournment. I will allow questions to continue until 5 pm, when we will move on to the next two statements. I will give precedence first to those who were not called on Friday.

Sir William Clark: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should treat the carping criticism from the Leader of the Opposition with the contempt that it deserves? Does he agree that the charter will be widely welcomed by passengers, parents, patients and post office users because it will give the citizen more rights, more freedom, and more value for money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speeches made over the weekend by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about utilities not being included merely show how ill informed the Opposition are?

The Prime Minister: It certainly does. Some of the widely trailed leaks that we have had from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in recent weeks are ill informed. I suggest that our colleagues and friends in the press get a better class of leak in the future. There is no doubt that the proposals will be widely welcomed. What has so piqued the Opposition is that they cannot match our proposals.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Prime Minister was reticent about the privatised industries, notably gas, electricity and water. Will the same criteria apply to those industries as will apply to the public sector? What we have heard this afternoon is not so much a citizens charter as an election address from the Conservative party.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads page 44 of the document, he will find that the same criteria are applied to the privatised industries. On the success of privatisation, prices of electricity, gas and telecommunications have all fallen against the retail prices index, to the benefit of the consumer. The taxpayer also benefited from privatisation receipts to the extent of nearly 3p off the standard rate of income tax.
The Opposition seem deeply split on the question of privatisation. Even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen apparently recognise that it is a good thing. I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said recently: "I am against privatisation." He was then asked why it was necessary in Liverpool. He said:
because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.
If it is right for Liverpool—and it is—it is right for the rest of the country, whether the right hon. Member for Salford, East believes it or not.

Mr. Anthony Steen: May I first of all congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his outstanding achievement last week in international affairs? May I also congratulate him on his outstanding statement this afternoon on domestic affairs?
Will the protection for railway passengers be extended to airline passengers? Can my right hon. Friend say something about the consumer in terms of those who travel on British Airways and those affected by the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority? Will those people get the same rights as railway passengers?

The Prime Minister: At the moment, different circumstances apply because of the range of competition that exists in attracting airline passengers. To that extent, there is not the same monopoly position—something which I believe has been the subject of some publicity in recent days.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the country has time to read this puce paper it will recognise that matters of some importance are contained in it, including proposals to extend competition? If they are to be of benefit to the travelling public, they are to be welcomed. The document also contains many trivial matters, such as lapel badges, and focuses on motorway services when there are parts of the country, such as my constituency, that are living in the mediaeval period in terms of road transport. Other matters are unformed, including the proposals for lay adjudicators. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the real obstacle to giving citizens redress for grievances is the outdated, overcentralised political system over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, which offers no constitutional reforms to protect the true interests of the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his third point, but I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the official Opposition to the many matters of real importance contained within the document. As the hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that those matters will be very welcome to the travelling public and also to the public who are treated in hospitals and to parents whose children use our national schools. They and many others will welcome what is in the document.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are smaller matters in the document, but I do not agree that they are trivial, because frustrations and difficulties for customers are not trival. They cause immense difficulty and we in the public service, and those of us who are responsible for it, should be in the business of removing those complaints. If they are trivial, let us get down to dealing with them, and that is what we propose to do. The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly motorway services under the heading of trivial matters. I think that many drivers who travel many miles along motorways and find no services whatever would not regard the provision of more motorway service stations as a trivial matter.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The House knows that the Labour party hates good news, and the leader of the rubbishmongers on the Opposition Benches has confirmed that this afternoon. The charter is excellent news for a great many different groups of our constitutents, and they will welcome it. The House should welcome the charter most particularly because it redresses the balance of advantage in favour of the people who pay for and use public services and against the traditional socialist forces of incompetence, arrogance and indifference which are so well represented on the Opposition Benches.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether I need to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said. The Labour party is officially concerned about the producers of services, whereas we are concerned about the users of services.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Prime Minister noticed the state of disorder and anarchy in social


security offices throughout the country? There are more delays than ever before because the computerised system does not work and the overworked staff are using the two systems—manual and computer—together. Should he not get his own house in order before he advances on the Walter Mitty dreams in his statement?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is singularly ill informed. Otherwise, he would know of the Benefits Agency and its work to improve the service to social security claimants.

Mr. Steve Norris: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a charter which gives powers to the regulators of public utilities? Did my right hon. Friend see the article in The Mail on Sunday by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), which said:
the real test will be how he handles the public utilities"?
On the basis of that test, does my right hon. Friend agree that his charter has passed with flying colours?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that it passes on the basis of that test and many others. The Opposition have been saying for some time that the test would be whether to increase powers for regulators. They are being increased but, for some curious reason, the Leader of the Opposition neglected to welcome it.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome for plans to make public authorities accountable, as they are usually the greatest offenders? Is he further aware that there will be satisfactiion that he has included housing authorities in the list? Housing authority staff will welcome the fact that something is to be done to redress the top-heavy bureaucracy, which exists in housing authorities despite the efforts of many dedicated members of staff.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I believe that they will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Of all the positive and practical proposals that my right hon. Friend has announced, the stripping away of the anonymity of the officials with whom one has to deal on the telephone will probably be the one most welcomed by the ordinary citizen. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that proposal is not watered down by the public service unions and those whom they sponsor? Personal responsibility, or a measure of it, is the greatest guarantee of efficiency and courtesy to the public.

The Prime Minister: I will, Sir—with the solitary exception of cases where it is judged that there may be some personal danger to the person concerned. Only in those circumstances will we sanction the anonymity that previously existed. In the light of the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) a moment ago, I should say that the members of the new Benefits Agency have already started to identify themselves by wearing name badges and ensuring that people are aware of whom they are dealing with.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Prime Minister agree that the giving of citizens' rights is empty unless those rights can be enforced and unless they are properly understood? Will he therefore reverse the process whereby millions of people have been denied access to legal aid?
Will he tell the Lord Chancellor straight away to stop his withdrawal of legal advice and assistance to some of the most vulnerable people, will he end the wholesale closure of law centres and advice centres, and will he place a duty on local authorities to have a comprehensive network of advice centres to assist ordinary citizens?

The Prime Minister: This is a continuing programme, and there are many sectors that we still wish to look at. Those rights will be enforced, and will certainly be understood.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many teachers and local government officers will welcome the charter programme? Does he also accept that, because the targets are public, people will be able to see progress, what problems remain and identify the points for action so that everyone may gain? The Labour party makes a mistake in opposing the charter, because many people who vote Labour want to see such improvements.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that, and people will see improvements. I am surprised that the Opposition scoff at the sort of additional improvements and rights that will be available to, for example, parents in the education sphere, where there will be independent inspection reports, a detailed prospectus, comparative information on exam, national curriculum and truancy results, summary results in local papers, annual reports on their child's progress, annual reports on the work of the school and comprehensive admissions booklets. Those are the new powers and rights for parents that the Opposition oppose.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Prime Minister accept that some of us would wish to give consideration to the document before offering detailed criticism, much of which I hope will be constructive, particularly during the legislative process? Does he accept from me that a preliminary glance through the document reveals that its terminology is England-based—reference is made to the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office and the Department of Transport, and the illustration given in relation to motorways refers to Watford as the most northerly point? Will he give an assurance that our legal and educational systems will be given further consideration and that a separate document will be produced on those matters?

The Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. A separate charter will be published for Scotland in the autumn, covering a wide range of matters. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that some consideration would be necessary before reaching a conclusion on what is in the document—a policy that is not widely welcomed. Indeed, it would be a novel principle for some right hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. John Bowis: Is not the reaction of Opposition Members due partly to the fact that they have realised that they wished that they had come up with a charter, and partly because they realise that their union bosses would not have let them do so? Is not the lesson of my right hon. Friend's statement the fact that, to have quality control, one must separate the quality controller from the provider of the service? Is that not exactly the lesson of privatisation in the past decade? But has not my


right hon. Friend left out one major plank in consumer protection—ensuring that, after the next election, this Government continue in office?

The Prime Minister: I have some confidence about that, so it was not necessary to state it explicitly in the White Paper. My hon. Friend scores a bull's eye when he makes the point about regulators. It is also exactly true to say that the Opposition could not have come up with the proposals.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the parts of the citizens charter that will be most closely scrutinised are those aspects dealing with the national health service. Within the citizens charter that he has proposed today, will the low priority given to people over the age of 65 requiring hospital treatment cease?

The Prime Minister: There is no such low priority for people over the age of 65—the hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. In my statement, I said that we were going to produce guaranteed maximum waiting times for many treatments where the quality of life is significantly reduced—for example, hip replacements, cataracts and hernia repairs, which often specifically impact on the lives of elderly people. To that extent, there will be a direct improvement specifically, but not exclusively, for them.

Mr. David Martin: I welcome the maximum waiting times for operations that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but how practical would such action be if there were no Government health reforms to build on—reforms that the Opposition opposed throughout?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Such actions would certainly be far more difficult, as the improving service offered by the national health service illustrates.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister accept that the carefully packaged statement that he has given to the House today has far more to do with the likelihood of an early general election than with the content of the announcement? Does he also accept that it is one thing to receive complaints, but another to act on them? What we need from the Government, as they are responsible for the public services being run down, is an influx of capital into the public services that will satisfy the complaints that the consumers are making. It is not enough simply to receive those complaints.

The Prime Minister: The purpose is to set up a mechanism to ensure that those complaints are acted on, rather than leave people with the frustrating feeling, which they have often felt in the past, that their concerns are not being dealt with. I detected an air of nervousness in the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he said that he thought that the charter might have something to do with the election—clearly, he thinks that it is an election winner.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not a fact that, for years, the debate on public services has been dominated by the providers of those services, and the significance of this Green Paper is that it redresses the balance and gives a voice to the user? Would not my right

hon. Friend also agree that the fatal flaw in the case put by the Leader of the Opposition is that he is controlled by the worst vested interests in the public sector organisations?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to draw the distinction between providers and users of the service. We act very much in the interests of those people who use the services, which is why we are determined to see through the action that I have announced today. As for the Opposition, their position of being in baulk as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade unions is well known.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Would the Prime Minister recognise that there are millions of citizens in this country who have had to stand 11 years of Conservative government, when all the matters, services and values in which they have faith have been taken away? Has the Prime Minister spoken to the Secretary of State for Education and Science because, as we debate the citizens charter, the recent education White Paper intends to take away the rights of hundreds and thousands of men and women in adult and continuing education, who are writing letters every day telling us that they know that the Government have no concern for their needs? Why should people today believe that the Prime Minister is genuine in what he has to say?

The Prime Minister: On the first point—it is 12 years, not 11 years. Secondly, if people are so dissatisfied, it is curious, is it not, that they keep re-electing this Government to power?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind that the excellent reforms in the public service can succeed probably only against the opposition of public sector unions, does my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that he should be subject to criticism from a shadow Cabinet—[Interruption]—in which 16 out of the 22 are supported by public sector unions—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: Over the hubbub from Opposition Members, I did not entirely catch the drift of my hon. Friend's question, but I suspect that it related to the large number of Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions. Certainly, the Opposition policy owes a lot to that.

Mr. John Cartwright: Although there is much to commend the Prime Minister's proposals, is he aware of the scepticism felt by the thousands of my constituents who have to deal with a council which keeps them waiting months on end for essential repairs, fails to answer their letters, and keeps needy people waiting up to a year for rebates? As none of them benefits in any way from the work of the Audit Commission, contracting out, or the tenants charter—all of which were supposed to solve such problems—why should my constituents have any more faith in the Prime Minister's proposals?

The Prime Minister: The council to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, of course, Labour-controlled—I make that point in case any right hon. or hon. Member had overlooked it. The proposals that will directly affect council tenants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere are the right-to-repair proposals. I understand the frustration that many citizens feel, because for years they have been unfairly treated by their local councils. It is only when improvements begin to be seen that they will


accept the value of the charter. Whatever it takes, and however long it takes, we will get it operating to the benefit of consumers.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charter will be welcomed by all consumers of public services and that, as usual, Labour has made a fatal miscalculation in opposing it? The charter provides what every parent in the country wants—reports which show how well their children are doing in class, how well that class is progressing relative to others in the school, and how well the school itself is performing relative to others throughout the country.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the charter will be welcomed. It puzzles me that Labour Members affect to deride the proposals. while the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) kept shouting earlier, "That's our policy." Which is it?

Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind the concern felt by the whole country at revelations of an increase in reported cases of child abuse within the family and at places of safety, the growing number of missing children, and the rising number of those sleeping rough on our streets, how do the Government justify the cut made by the Department of Health in its grant to the National Association of Young People in Care? If the Prime Minister is really concerned about citizens and a charter, why has he failed to take the action that we promise, and to appoint a commissioner for children as recommended by the Gulbenkian Foundation? Is it because children have no votes?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's last remark is unworthy of her—at least, I hope that it is unworthy of her. The purpose of the charter proposals that I have announced, and of those to come—a great deal has yet to come in the years ahead— is to build up and improve services to ordinary people throughout the country. I know that social services, for example, are of concern to the hon. Lady. The review of the social services inspectorate and the intention to include lay people among its membership show that we are determined to ensure proper inspections and to prevent a recurrence of some of the problems that have arisen in the past. That is a significant move forward.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Does the provision for guaranteed maximum hospital waiting times mean that a hospital or health authority which fails to provide an operation in time will be required to purchase that operation from the private sector?

The Prime Minister: It certainly can mean that. The option will be there for an operation or treatment elsewhere in the national health service, or, if that is not possible, in the private sector. The guaranteed maximum waiting time will be honoured wherever the treatment is provided.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: What redress will be offered under the citizens charter to an applicant to the social fund who is refused a loan not because his needs are not recognised but because the local fund has been spent up for the year? Will such an individual have any redress against the local fund for not managing it well

enough? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that example shows that no citizens charter can compensate for the fundamental problem of underfunding?

The Prime Minister: Were any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to find themselves in the situation that he describes, the right place for them to go would be to the hon. Gentleman, as their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Derek Conway: When the whingeing from the Opposition has died down, will not my right hon. Friend's announcement be recognised as a milestone for this nation? Will his advisory team continue extending the powers and capabilities of the local government and parliamentary ombudsmen, so that their respective judgments against bureaucracy will be given some teeth?

The Prime Minister: It is a milestone for us, but I suspect that it will be a headstone for Labour.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Prime Minister help me with his definition of a citizen? Who will benefit from this great charter of his? Will Commonwealth citizens who are not settled in this country benefit from it? What about European Community nationals, or refugees and asylum seekers—from whom the Government removed the right to legal aid and assistance? Will they benefit from the charter? If not, what about a charter for them?

The Prime Minister: Everyone properly resident in this country will benefit from it.

Mr. Michael Lord: Although the charter may not be good news for Opposition Members, it is very good news for my constituents, many of whom have to struggle with miles of traffic cones when driving on the A45 or when travelling to work from Norwich to Liverpool Street every day. It is crucial that those who serve the public should not be allowed to remain anonymous, and I urge my right hon. Friend to try to cut through all the jargon and to remove unintelligible job titles. Finally, is it too much to hope that, one day soon, we may have a matron in every hospital?

The Prime Minister: I missed my hon. Friend's last point, but I will ask him about it later. I agree with his other points, and that the bogus opposition displayed this afternoon represents a grave misjudgment by Labour Members.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Which page of the charter gives rights to private sector tenants not to be abused by Rachman-style landlords? Which page gives rights to people receiving social security benefits, such as those students who this year will enjoy a zero income between now and returning to college? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman forgot, in his rush to appear on television this afternoon, to provide any information on those two groups. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister's proposals are not a citizens charter but a privatisation charter? We all know what privatisation brought—higher prices, poorer services, and big pay rises for those who run the new companies.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Gorton is in favour of privatisation, so why is the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) so upset? The hon. Member for Blackburn keeps saying, "That's our policy." Clearly,


Labour is much more deeply split than I had previously thought. If the hon. Member for Makerfield had listened and understood my previous comments, he would know that this is a charter for the public sector and for public utilities. The hon. Gentleman, like the Leader of the Opposition, talks about everything except the subject under discussion.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the important role to be played in his admirable proposals by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with him, to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports reflect not only value for money and the efficiency of accounting but those aspects covered by the citizens charter, and that he reports to the Public Accounts Committee accordingly?

The Prime Minister: We plan to discuss those matters with the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I will act as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that many consumers of gas, electricity and water services feel that the regulators' present powers are far too weak? Why has the right hon. Gentleman vetoed an increase in the powers of even the strongest regulator—I refer to page 44—and the provision of a consumer ombudsman or of some other form of proper consumer representation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman was one of those who was leaking inaccurate information before the statement was made. Now that the proposals are public, he cannot continue to produce the same rubbish. If he reads the White Paper, and if he reads what I said earlier, he will find that we are increasing all the powers of the regulators

to the level of the most compelling powers they have. That will give them extra powers which go beyond those currently available to them. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman said that we would not do, and precisely what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said was the test of the charter.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everything that he has said this afternoon will be welcomed by most normal people throughout the country? I will give an illustration. An elderly and frail constituent of mine saw me at my surgery on Friday. She has had recently to change her doctor. She has been told by those responsible for the bureaucracy of the health service that she will have to wait three months for her medical notes to be transferred. Is that the sort of case in which action can be taken?
May I add one note of caution on railways? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government do not rush into any decision on railway privatisation until he is certain that at least as good a service will be offered to the public as a result of any changes that might be contemplated?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I announced, we propose to introduce a regulator to ensure that the service is adequate and in the interests of those who use the rail lines.
The first point that my hon. Friend raised is not in the charter at this stage, but it is among the matters that we shall wish to consider.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some of those hon. Members who have been rising in their places are seeking to participate in the summer Adjournment motion debate, and I shall endeavour to call them. I shall be able to call a great many more hon. Members if their contributions are brief.

Rail Crash (Glasgow)

5 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the railway accident that occurred at Newton, near Glasgow, yesterday evening, Sunday 21 July.
At about 22.00 yesterday evening the 20.55 Balbach to Motherwell electric multiple unit train collided head on with the 21.55 Newton to Glasgow Central train near Newton station, between Glasgow and Motherwell. I understand that four people were killed, including both train drivers, and more than 30 people were injured.
The House will, I know, want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and injured; and our thanks to the emergency services.
British Rail is carrying out its own full technical investigation into the circumstances and cause of the accident, including the signalling, track and trains. British Rail will be holding a formal inquiry, starting tomorrow. The results will be made available to the Health and Safety Executive. The railway inspectorate, now part of the HSE, has already started its investigations. An inspecting officer has been on site overnight and a second inspector with specialist knowledge of signalling electronics has travelled to the scene to assist with the investigations.
After consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has today appointed Mr. Robin Seymour, Her Majesty's chief inspecting officer of railways, to carry out an inquiry under the Regulations of Railways Act 1871. His inquiry will be wholly independent. It will be held in public. The report will be published and we have asked him to report to us as quickly as possible. British Rail will, of course, act immediately should the need for any urgent measures emerge during the various investigations.
The cause of the accident is not yet clear. The House will agree that it would be wholly wrong to speculate on any conclusions that the inquiry may reach as to the cause of the accident.

Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the four people who died. Two of them were the drivers of the trains, who are inevitably in the front line when these terrible tragedies occur. I offer also our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who were injured in yesterday's terrible accident.
Once again, we who speak about our transport industries express our unfailing admiration of the emergency services, which responded so swiftly and with such skill and courage. We pay tribute to their professionalism and dedication.
I express regret that the Secretary of State for Transport, who was here but a few minutes ago, was not here to make an announcement, which is the normal course of events. We recognise that he has many calls upon his time, but it was an error of judgment not to stay to make a statement.
Is the Minister aware that, according to the railway inspectorate's safety reports, significant collisions between passenger trains have increased by over 60 per cent. when comparing the first part of this decade and the last part of

the 1980s, and that in 1989 there was a 100 per cent. increase on the average for the previous four years? That is a grave and growing area of concern which has caused me and others concern during the past four years. The increase in these collisions is alarming and I ask the Minister to tell us whether he is aware of it.
Has the Minister read the report of the inquiry into the Bellgrove accident, which took place in March 1989? There are certain similarities between that accident and the one that we are now considering. It involved new track alignment, converting double track to single-track crossovers, which in the event of failure, either human or in the signalling system, put trains on to a head-on collision. Will he recognise the acceptance by those carrying out the inquiry that replacing double crossover points with single ones is a cheaper option and that the justification for doing so relied solely on everyone observing the signal procedures? The Minister must be aware, however, that over 60 per cent. of railway accidents are due to human error. Therefore, the judgment to use the cheaper option is, to my mind, faulty.
Did the Minister note the recommendation in the Bellgrove report that any such changes should be allowed only on the condition that an automatic train protection system should be implemented of the sort that was fitted to some trains in the 1970s? I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the recommendation that the Secretary of State's permission must be granted before any further schemes are implemented will be put into effect. It is clear that the scheme to which I have referred had to be considered. Did the Secretary of State agree that it should be implemented? Was he satisfied with it on safety grounds? Was he concerned to see whether any automatic protection systems were built into it to avoid the inevitable head-on collisions that arise from the changes that I have described?
The Minister has told the House that an inquiry will be undertaken after consultation with the Health and Safety Commission. The inquiry will be headed by the chief inspecting officer of railways. Will the Government now launch an independent investigation into whether British Rail is pursuing cheaper options that are reducing safety standards, which have led to an alarming increase in significant collisions between passenger trains? We should not have to ask the same question after another 12 months have passed. What are the Government prepared to do about it?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. The first one related to the number of significant collisions between passenger trains. He was doubtless referring to the recent report from the railway inspectorate. The table in that report sets out the average number of collisions between passenger trains. For the years 1984 to 1988, the average is six per annum. In 1989, there were 12 collisions. That figure includes six railway trains—the rest of the collisions involved trams. I do not believe, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman or the House can draw any conclusion that there is a deteriorating trend in accidents—

Mr. Prescott: I spoke of a 60 per cent. increase over the 1980s.

Mr. Freeman: The plain fact is that in 1989 there were six accidents involving collisions between passenger trains, and that equalled the average for 1984 to 1988.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Bellgrove inquiry. He is right to say that there are clear similarities between the tragic accident at Bellgrove and the accident at Newton. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 129 of the inspector's report on the Bellgrove accident. The inspector said:
We consider that single lead junctions"—
the single-lead junction was the delineation of the track at Bellgrove and at Newton—
are acceptable in principle of safety grounds and we do not accept that improvements in the efficiency of operation and maintenance are intrinsically at variance with the maintenance of an adequate standard of safety.
So the Bellgrove report did not state that single-lead junctions are inherently unsafe. Clearly their safety depends on proper operation, including the drivers of trains and signalling equipment at single-lead junctions. The Bellgrove inspector's report did not state that such junctions were inherently unsafe.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether permission had been given for the conversion of the line at Newton to a single-lead junction. Provisional agreement for British Rail to operate that single-lead junction had been given by the railway inspectorate. Of course, it said that its final judgment on the operation of the single-lead junction would depend on its subsequent examination, and that has not yet taken place. However, I can confirm that the railway inspectorate specifically gave permission for Brritish Rail to operate a single-lead junction service at that station.
The hon. Gentleman asked about safety, the implication being that in some way BR or the Government did not place safety at the top of their list of priorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the year 1990–91, BR spent £140 million on safety measures. For this year, 1991–92, we anticipate that BR will spend about £200 million on safety measures. That clearly shows that BR believes that safety is a top priority of passengers, and the Government support BR appropriately with funds.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As the constituency Member affected, I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask an early question. I wish to place on record my strong objection to and resentment of the absence of the Secretary of State for Transport. He was in the Chamber only a few minutes ago, and I regard his departure as an insult not only to those casualties of the tragic accident, but to the front-line services that were involved.
I mean no disrespect to the Minister; I accept his sincerity in expressing sympathy to the relatives of those who died in the accident. I endorse all that he said about the emergency services. I would include the ScotRail staff, who played a significant role. I managed to go to the scene of the accident for an hour in the early hours of the morning, and the emergency workers were doing a first-class job. I also commend the local residents living adjacent to the scene of the accident who, despite risk to themselves, were the first over the fence to try to help those trapped in the carriage. As the local Member of Parliament, I am proud of them.
The newspapers this morning quoted the Secretary of State for Transport as saying that the Newton collision was a tragic accident. How could he say that when he does not have the results of the inquiry? What is he afraid of?

His comments are the pathetic hallmark of a Cabinet Minister trying to shuffle away from his responsibilities. The fact is that single tracking is being pushed as a way to reduce costs and a route to privatisation. Can the Minister confirm that, if single tracking had not been introduced, those two trains would have been on separate lines and the collision would not have occurred?

Mr. Freeman: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the emergency services. Anyone who has attended a railway accident, as I have, will have found it traumatic. We all appreciate the suffering of the 30 injured passengers. We also appreciate the fact that passers-by, third parties and those living nearby did all that they could to help. I pay tribute to the emergency services and to all who rendered assistance last night.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that if there had been a double lead, the trains would not have run into each other. That is obvious. However, a single-lead junction—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, should not be confused with a single track—is a feature of British Rail's operations at very many junctions. The inspector, Mr. Robin Seymour, is the same inspector who produced the Bellgrove report. In preparing his report on the Newton accident, I am sure that, yet again, he will examine the use of single-lead junctions. I shall not speculate on the cause of the accident, but I am sure that in investigating the possible cause, and in the light of his Bellgrove report, Mr. Seymour will look afresh at any lessons that can be learned from this tragic accident.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Minister aware that we have not yet been given an answer to the reasonable question of why the Secretary of State is not here to reply to our questions? It is a reasonable question, and we are entitled to an answer.
Will the Minister specifically ask Mr. Seymour whether he was correct, at the Bellgrove inquiry, to say that single-lead junctions were inherently safe? In view of the number of dead and injured, the empirical evidence points to the opposite being the case.

Mr. Freeman: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I hope that he has not been misled. I did not say that in the Bellgrove report Mr. Seymour had said that single-lead junctions were inherently safe; what I said was that they were not inherently unsafe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is an important difference. I quoted paragraph 129 in full, and I shall repeat it. It stated:
We consider that single lead junctions are acceptable in principle on safety grounds and we do not accept that improvements in the efficiency of operation and maintenance are intrinsically at variance with the maintenance of an adequate standard of safety.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister appreciate that many hon. Members represent towns and communities on the fringe of the great city of Glasgow, and that many of our constituents commute daily to that city? Does he accept that the accident, following so quickly after the accident at Bellgrove—and given the incidence of railway accidents to which he referred—perhaps makes the case for a wider inquiry into safety on the railways and the condition of the tracks, the signalling equipment and the rolling stock?


Would not that reassure the travelling public that everything humanly possible was being done to ensure safety on the railways?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the railways, compared with almost any other mode of transport, are relatively safe. They can never be completely safe because of the possibility of human frailty. The statistics show that in 1989—the last full year for which we have figures—total fatalities, excluding those who were trespassing or who had committed suicide on the railways, were 69. That figure is close to the average for the previous 15 years, which is the period for which I have figures.
I know that the aim of Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, is for total safety on the railways. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also wants that. Indeed, Sir Bob Reid recently confirmed that aim in a document entitled "Rail Safety". which I commend to the House. The aim might be impossible to achieve, but it is laudable.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I wish to offer my deep sympathies and those of my colleagues to the bereaved relatives of those who were killed, and also to the injured. I, too, pay tribute to the rescue services, which I understand worked swiftly, with a calm and determined air, throughout the night.
I welcome the public inquiry. Will it consider the matter of training? With all the new, sophisticated signalling equipment, is it not essential that everyone involved with trains should have proper training? We should know the type of training, its length, and how often it is available. Will the Minister or, indeed, the inquiry tell us whether the signalling system was installed to try to reduce the time of the Glasgow-London trains by four and a half or five minutes?

Mr. Freeman: On the first point, the hon. Lady may know that British Rail commissioned a study, carried out by the Royal Holloway and Bedford new college and by British Rail research staff, of incidents of signals passed at danger and seeking to draw common threads and to make recommendations. British Rail has accepted the report's findings. One of its principal recommendations was on the provision of better driver training. The report recommended that, rather than having a driver afraid of committing the offence of passing a signal at danger, possibly losing his job and being disciplined, there should be a much more positive culture among British Rail staff about signalling and awareness of the dangers in dealing with modern signalling systems faced not only by drivers but by their passengers. I welcome British Rail's response to the report. If the hon. Lady is interested, I shall send her a copy.

Mr. William McKelvey: Does not the Minister understand the worry of some Opposition Members at the fact that the person who conducted the Bellgrove inquiry is to conduct this inquiry? If that person made mistakes in the report, he might duplicate them and he might not feel that it was appropriate to recognise any mistakes that were made. It has been said that the present system is not inherently unsafe. That may be all right as a matter of principle, but, although I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry, twice that has proved to be totally unacceptable.

Mr. Freeman: The officer who has been appointed to conduct this inquiry is the chief inspecting officer of British

Rail, Mr. Robin Seymour. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have total confidence in Mr. Seymour. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not casting any aspersions on him. He is independent, and the railway inspectorate is now part of the Health and Safety Executive.
As for the wisdom of appointing the same man to conduct an investigation into a similar accident, I should have thought that the House would believe that there were certain advantages in enabling Mr. Seymour to reflect on conclusions that were drawn from the Bellgrove incident. I believe that uppermost in hon. Members' minds is the question: is this a pattern that can be avoided? It is important, and appropriate that the same officer who completed the Bellgrove report should report on this incident. That will allow any lessons learned from the first incident to come much more quickly to the fore.

Mr. John McAllion: I again ask the Minister this question, because the House has still not had an answer: what important business persuaded the Secretary of State for Transport, who represents a Scottish constituency, to be absent from the Chamber during this important statement about a serious, fatal rail accident in Scotland?
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Clapham rail disaster in 1988 included the recommendation to install automatic train protection systems, which would have introduced fail-safe braking for trains? Has that recommendation been implemented; if not, why not? It might have reduced the casualties and deaths that occurred in this terrible accident.

Mr. Freeman: The recommendation to introduce automatic train protection—ATP—followed the Clapham accident. British Rail is trialling automatic train protection on Chiltern lines and on the Great Western railway. When lessons from those two trials have been learnt, British Rail will be able to draw up a standard for the introduction of ATP throughout the British Rail network.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister seems to be avoiding a question. He should know that it is deeply offensive at least to many Opposition Members, that the Secretary of State for Transport, who was here a short time ago mouthing his ritual "Hear, hears" in statements on other matters, is not here for a statement on deaths in a railway accident in Scotland. In the light of of the Minister's answers, the decision by the Secretary of State becomes all the more regrettable, because there is confusion to be cleared up.
Mr. Seymour's report on the Bellgrove collision recommended:
British Railways should submit all proposals for the conversion of double line junctions to single line junctions for approval by the Secretary of State irrespective of whether they are stages of major works.
Is it correct that the Secretary of State did not accept that recommendation? Is it correct that the inspector was told to go away and that it was his responsibility to deal with such transfers? Following a further fatal tragedy, has the same inspector been asked to report on what appear to be similar circumstances and to come back to the Minister with precisely the same recommendations that the Secretary of State has already turned down? If that


inspector comes back with the same recommendations, will the Secretary of State accept them? What a pity that the Secretary of State is not here to give us the answers.

Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with responses from me. I have direct responsibility for the railways—I am the Minister responsible for the railways.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, while the Bellgrove inquiry was under way, there was a moratorium on conversions to single-lead junctions. Once the Bellgrove inquiry had reported, that moratorium was lifted. Provisional agreement was given for the operation of a single-lead junction at Newton, and the railway inspectorate did not withdraw that agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By the railway inspectorate.

Mr. George Foulkes: If I ask the Minister courteously whether he can tell the House what business keeps the Secretary of State away from the House and makes him unable to make this important statement, will he have the courtesy to tell the House? That is the sixth time that that question has been asked.
Is the Minister aware that £5 million has been spent on this portion of the line and that the line could not be used for some time after completion of the work? Was that due to twisted or damaged rails, as was reported, or to some other cause? What was the cause? If the problem was rectified, when did that happen and who certified that the line was safe to use?

Mr. Freeman: I am not aware of any report of twisted rail on this section of the track before the incident. It is true that there is a report that the train passed the signal and damaged the junction. Clearly, details will come out in the report.
The hon. Gentleman is right about recent investment in the line. This section of the track has been extensively resignalled, and the resignalling has only just come into operation. The railway inspectorate, an independent body, is responsible for safety on the railways. All the necessary approvals, provisional in the case of the single-lead junction, had been given for the running of the trains.

Mr. Foulkes: What about the Secretary of State?

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people recognise him in his position as Minister for Public Transport as not only competent in his job but extremely courteous? He has taken more trouble than any other Minister in my recollection to understand the problems involved in railway operations, and he is accompanied on the Government Front Bench by a Scottish Office Minister.
There has been much discussion about single-lead junctions. Does my hon. Friend agree that reversible track may reduce costs, but it cannot increase safety? I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on British Rail's safety record and for confirming that, over the past 15 years, the annual number of fatalities has been less than the three-day average toll of carnage and death on our roads.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.

Mrs. Irene Adams: As the Minister seems to have great difficulty answering two-pronged questions, I shall put one simple question to him. Will he do the House the courtesy of telling us what urgent business has taken the Secretary of State for Transport away this afternoon?

Mr. Freeman: This is urgent business. I am the responsible Minister and I hope that I am giving the House clear answers.

Water Supply (North-west London)

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the failure of disinfection over the weekend in water supplied to the public by Three Valleys Water Services plc.
The company draws water from the Thames for treatment at Iver and supply through two of its subsidiary companies—Colne Valley and Rickmansworth—to some half a million people in north-west London and adjacent parts of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. At about 3.50 pm on Saturday instrumentation suggested that part of the chlorination equipment might not be operating normally. It took time to diagnose the fault and assess its consequences, but by Saturday evening it was cleat to the company that some 2 million to 3 million gallons of water had been put into the distribution system without the level of chlorination needed for satisfactory disinfection. The company informed the appropriate local and health authorities, and at about midnight began to seek the assistance of the police and the media in order to warn its customers to boil water for at least a minute before using it. An extensive programme of sampling was also initiated within the distribution network on Saturday night.
The drinking water inspectorate in my Department was informed of the incident by the company at 11 pm on Saturday. The inspectorate has already started a thorough investigation in order to satisfy itself that the company responded in a timely and appropriate manner. It will also wish to identify the causes of the incident, and any improvements in equipment or procedures that ought to be made to prevent any possibility of a recurrence. If there is evidence that water unfit for human consumption has been supplied, the inspectorate will consider whether to recommend a prosecution.
The company has told us that, apart from chlorination, the remainder of the treatment process appears to have been functioning normally. The company has also informed us that the preliminary results of its sampling show that, despite the failure of disinfection, residual chlorine was present in all samples tested, and that only a small proportion of samples showed traces of any bacteria. My advice is that boiling the water in accordance with the company's guidance should have been an effective protection against any bacteria present.
I understand that the situation has been reviewed this afernoon by the water company in consultation with the local authorities and the health authorities, and I have just heard that those bodies have unanimously agreed that customers in the area no longer need to boil drinking water. The decision was made in the light off continual satisfactory sampling throughout the area.
The Government have established a system of independent statutory regulation of the water industry. We believe that the regulators have the necessary powers to deal with a situation of this kind. But, if it is shown to be necessary, we shall ensure that those powers are further strengthened.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for giving the House the latest information about what has happened. Unfortunately, the statement leaves many questions unanswered.
I hope that the Minister will explain several matters to the House. First, will he tell the House why, if the incident occurred before 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, the public were not notified until the early hours of Sunday morning, and indeed, in many cases not until more than 12 hours after the incident? Will the Minister tell us, too, who will pay for the police time spent patrolling the affected areas to warn people of the dangers of drinking the contaminated water?
Will the Minister tell us more about what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what is known about the health impact of the incident? Will he confirm that several children have been taken to hospital, and that local doctors and chemists have been exceptionally busy?
In connection with the causes of the incident, is monitoring of chlorination not one of the simplest procedures in the treatment of water, carried out on a continuous basis, with continuous assessment, so that any company should know of any problem within seconds of something going wrong? Can the Minister tell us what went wrong not only with the procedures but with the fail-safe devices? Were those devices not adequate, despite the assurances given by the company only weeks ago?
Will the Minister confirm that this is not the first time that the companies forming Three Valleys Water Services plc have had to advise consumers to boil water? Will he acknowledge that Three Valleys is among the companies that were responsible for no fewer than 34 incidents of microbiological contamination of drinking water in 1990?
Perhaps the most serious implication of recent events is the fact that such incidents show that the entire system of drinking water regulation is inadequate. Is it not a fact that the drinking water inspectorate—the so-called drinking water watchdog—did not even visit the company for its inspection, but subcontracted the work to the consulting engineering company Watson-Hawksley?
The drinking water inspectorate report published only last week said that the company's procedures were satisfactory. If the procedures were satisfactory, why did the incident take place? If they were not satisfactory, why did the report not pick up that fact? Does that not prove the need for the drinking water inspectorate to consist of more than a couple of dozen civil servants in the Department of the Environment? We need an independent regulatory body with teeth.
Finally, does the Minister accept that, if the water supplied had to be boiled before it could be drunk, it cannot be deemed to have been fit for consumption, but must be considered unfit? Will the hon. Gentleman, who has the power to prosecute the company, tell us whether he intends to do so? Will he take the opportunity to tell us whether he intends to prosecute the other companies that charge consumers record prices but do not provide the service that all consumers have a right to demand?

Mr. Trippier: I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for her opening remarks. I should not be making a statement to the House if I were not entirely satisfied with the information to hand. I believe that it was necessary for an inspection to take place, and the investigation is being carried out by the drinking water inspectorate. The hon. Lady would not expect me to prejudice the findings of the report. Clearly, the decision whether to prosecute will be made in the light of the evidence that comes to hand.
In reply to the hon. Lady's general question about prosecution, Environment Ministers will not prevaricate if the necessary evidence is available for a court case to be undertaken and won. I must remind the House that, after all, it was the Government who set up the drinking water inspectorate in the first place.
I am not aware of any provision for the company to be charged for police time.
The hon. Lady asked what had happened during the past 24 hours. The most significant event has been a meeting between the local authorities and local health authorities. I am delighted, as the hon. Lady will be, that the unanimous decision has been taken that there is no further need to boil the water. It may seem strange that, within 48 hours of the first warnings being sounded, the company has lifted the restriction, but I understand that it has made a statement this afternoon to the effect that it genuinely believed that, if there were the slightest danger to health—serious or not so serious—it was right to impose the restriction. On that point, I am happy to concur with the company's statement.
I question whether the hon. Lady was right to suggest that a mistake at a plant should or could have been put right within seconds. That is stretching credulity to breaking point.
The hon. Lady was correct about the last visit made by the inspectorate. The inspectorate used consultants—that is quite common. That is the way most of its work is carried out. Such consultants still have to conform to the same regulations, whether national standards or standards imposed on us by the European Community. I do not think that that matters. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that when the inspectors visited the plant at Rickmansworth during 1990—this was referred to in the report published by the DWI last week—it concluded that the disinfection arrangements were satisfactory.
There seemed to have been a number of questions about delays in informing the public. They are precisely the questions that I hope will be dealt with by the investigation.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My constituents will be grateful to learn that their water supply, as my hon. Friend said, will be back to normal some time today. They will not be very pleased to hear, however, that the delay still cannot be explained.
My hon. Friend has said that the problem started at 3.50 pm. The expert who belatedly came on LBC yesterday morning said that it started at about 9.30 pm. There are eight hours between 4 pm and midnight, but this expert said that it was dawn before an attempt was begun to contact the media.
I listened to LBC from 8 am to midday, constantly trying to—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend will know that I was doing the ironing. LBC said repeatedly that it was trying to contact the water authorities but getting no response. After invitations from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and me, a spokesman miraculously appeared to say that he could give some information.
I hope that we shall find out what went on and why. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I am worried about previous instances, and I hope that we shall find out exactly what went wrong. The comments made yesterday

by the company chairman on LBC were useless, and one wonders about the quality of management in the organisation when it can put forward someone who bumbles and mumbles like him. I hope that my constituents can be assured that if, God forbid, such a thing occurs again, they and all the authorities involved will be immediately informed.

Mr. Trippier: It is precisely my hon. Friend's last point that concerns me. I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks: the investigation will be principally concerned with the problem of information and of delay.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We should already have learnt the lesson of the inability to plan for this sort of incident from the toxic waste pollution in Norfolk and from the Camelford example—we tried to close the stable door in both cases after the horses had bolted. Emergency civil planning and the ability to communicate information failed again, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said, partly because the media could not be reached when needed and partly because the water companies could not be reached when they were needed.
When, eventually, announcements were made, we find that some people were still getting leaflets through their doors this morning—written in gobbledegook for those who speak English, let alone the many in the area who do not. The leaflet described "an operational incident" and referred to
partly treated water being put into supply".
People needed to be told that the water was not fit to drink and that they should not drink it unless it was boiled. They did not need these sorts of half-truths concealing what they wanted to know.
If people were responsible for polluting, they should pay. If people were harmed, they should be compensated. Will the citizens charter apply to this sort of defect in consumer services?

Mr. Trippier: I concur with a number of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I share his worry about delays—no one in any political party has a monopoly of concern in this matter—but I have some difficulty reconciling what happened at Camelford with what happened in this case. I can see many differences, and the hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not agree with his parallel.
As for compensation, the hon Gentleman may have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refer in the statement this afternoon to the role of Ofwat and the responsibilities that it will carry under his initiative. My right hon. Friend said that we will introduce legislation to make sure that the regulators have adequate powers to require the award of compensation in response to legitimate customer complaints.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents take this major lapse at the Iver water treatment works, based in my constituency, very seriously? Is he aware that I only heard about it from the church pulpit at 10 o'clock yesterday morning? It is unacceptable that more than 12 hours should have elapsed before my constituents were notified. There should be proper procedures to ensure that the customers affected are immediately notified. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry looks into that and sets in place procedures to make certain that such immediate notification is given in future?

Mr. Trippier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, given my statement and subsequent answers, I share his anxiety about this matter and I take it seriously.
We must look at what can be done to improve communications and not expect such information to be disseminated in the form of parish notices from the pulpit.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: What are the requirements by the controlling body governing the numbers of people on duty and the chlorination mechanism? Is the latter automatic or visual, continuous or periodic? Secondly, did the system depend on service reservoirs; was it direct or indirect, or a mixture of the two? Thirdly, is the company wholly owned by shareholders in the United Kingdom, or is it a subsidiary of a large water undertaking outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. Trippier: The answer to the last question is that a French company has a large holding, not that I know what difference that can make. This is not a privatisation issue—the company has been privatised for a considerable time.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, and I hope that the investigation will establish whether enough people were available to deal with the problem. I am entirely satisfied that, once the communication was made to my Department and to the drinking water inspectorate, there were enough people in place to notify Ministers and others so that the necessary regulatory action could be taken—which, of course, it was.

Mr. Richard Page: I very much welcome the decision to set up the inquiry, which is the right way to ascertain what happened. Will it ex amine what is possibly the most serious aspect of the case? The company had agreed a rectification policy with authorities such as the DWI. Then, just before midnight, it tried to contact the local media and rang local radio stations. Those that replied—not all of them did—were not interested. When the company got hold of the television studios, they said that the matter was not of national interest. It was certainly of interest to my constituents. Fortunately, the problem was not serious in this case, but I hope that the inquiry will see whether there is some immediate way of using broadcasting stations, which must recognise that they have a social duty to the public and my constituents.

Mr. Trippier:: I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I too have heard evidence to the effect that a number of broadcasting stations said that they were not interested because this was not of national interest. I question whether that is a responsible attitude to take.
Whether or not the drinking water inspectorate deals with this problem in its investigation is irrelevant, because I assure my hon. Friend that I shall deal with it.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Minister make clear his concern about the obvious ineptitude and tardiness of the water company's response in this matter? We do not need an inquiry to reveal that. My constituents found that they had to inform each other of the danger by word of mouth—indeed, my own household did so. They encountered mind-boggling complacency on the part of the water authority. It is time that the Minister expressed his concern in the clearest and most strident terms, so that

those who might be tempted to go down this path in future will be deterred. The inquiry must not become a whitewashing exercise.

Mr. Trippier: Although it is repeating what I said earlier, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I would not have made the statement or answered questions on it unless I was concerned about this matter. We would not have called for an investigation by the drinking water inspectorate in the way that it will be carried out unless the whole of the Department of the Environment and the drinking water inspectorate were concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and will appreciate that I cannot say that the company has been dilatory or complacent in the way that he suggests, or make any such comment, until the investigation has been completed.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this incident has caused great concern to my constituents in Uxbridge and Hillingdon? Will he ensure that the inquiry will look into the means by which these automated systems operate and whether there is a suitable trigger mechanism to alert the company, its management and the emergency services in the event of a failure of this kind? Will he assure the House not only that Three Valleys will learn the lessons but that they will be applied to every water company in the country, because the possibility of much more serious faults than the one that occurred in this instance is very alarming?
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, who from the early hours of Sunday morning, did an absolutely first-class job in notifying consumers by the use of loud hailers and leaflets so that the vast majority of people in the area were aware of the incident? They knew by the time they got up in the morning that they had to boil their water. Will he please look at the kind of notification that water companies are obliged to send to consumers to ensure that it is written clearly, so that everybody can easily understand it?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks about notification and undertake to look at that. I join him in congratulating the police on the wonderful role that they played in responsibly informing people in the area to the best of their ability. My hon. Friend asked about the lessons to be learned and about an adequate trigger point. I assure him that we shall look at that in particular with a view to replicating throughout the country anything that needs to be done as a result of the lessons learned from this experience.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank the Minister for his detailed statements, which will go some way to reassuring people. None the less, we can all thank the Almighty that a major disaster has been averted: one can only imagine what might have happened. I join him in paying tribute to the police for their rapid response, and I pay particular tribute to the police in Harrow for the way in which they acted and patrolled the streets.
Local health authorities also acted promptly but, as hon. Members have said, we need a cogent and detailed explanation about the company's delay in notifying the public and the media. Will the Minister consider the need for a further statement, bearing in mind that the House is soon going into recess, to deal with that matter? On the assumption that the Iver works, which has been


mentioned, deals primarily or exclusively with Thames river water, may we have a proper explanation to reassure the public about the way in which that water is treated and an assurance that the contamination coefficients will be properly sorted out by the regulatory authorities and the company?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall have to return to this matter. I entirely accept that there must be a cogent explanation about precisely what happened in terms of the delay and what went wrong in the plant. My hon. Friend will understand that some of that information might have to be used as evidence if a prosecution were taken out by the Department of the Environment. Therefore, one might have to handle that carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend the report to be made public at the appropriate time.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for the announcement of the inquiry by the drinking water inspectorate. It is important for the inspectorate to look at what happened and why it happened, at mechanisms that exist to stop it happening again and, in particular, at the matter that has already been raised with my hon. Friend, about informing people about what went on. From what my hon. Friend has said, I am even more perplexed than I was yesterday, and my constituents will also be perplexed.
Every time I listen to a radio or television bulletin, I hear different times being mentioned and different versions of what happened and when attempts were made to inform the public. Apparently, the company was able to inform the drinking water inspectorate at 11 o'clock but started to try to tell people who were likely to drink the water at 12 o'clock. That is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry will examine that specific aspect? Lastly, but most importantly, may I be assured that the report of the inquiry will be made entirely public so that people can assess for themselves what has been done in their name?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend may not have heard my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the information that has come to light. I repeat that assurance—that it is absolutely essential that the information arising from the investigation should be made public. There is an interim stage at which we shall have to decide whether a prosecution may be necessary or appropriate.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about information supplied to customers/consumers in this matter, and I assure him that the investigation will be especially directed at that. The timings in my statement are

definitive because we have gleaned them from several sources and they have been confirmed and reconfirmed, in contrast to the speculative timings that my hon. Friend may have heard elsewhere.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I add my thanks to my hon. Friend for reassuring the House? The investigation should look into the problem of notifying people of such emergencies at weekends, because that was the real cause of the difficulty. Not all members of the public are as assiduous as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) in listening to the radio, nor are they all as indulgent as I was in going to buy my little son an ice cream, when I found in the shop a leaflet notifying me and other residents of my constituency of the dangers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the police and other services have the necessary manpower to inform the public of such emergencies at weekends?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Much of the problem associated with this matter arose from the fact that the incident occurred at a weekend. I hope that the investigation will specifically address the matter of the problems that can arise at weekends.

Mr. Roger Knapman: My hon. Friend has rightly observed that this is a regrettable incident. Does he agree that one of the main advantages of privatisation of the industry is the complete separation of the provider of services from the regulator of standards, the so-called poacher-gamekeeper relationship? That will stand us in good stead in this and perhaps in any similar matters in future.

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I was somewhat surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who did not pay a compliment where I thought that one was appropriate. The regulatory system that we have set up and of which I am enormously proud brought about the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper roles. That is essential. The House and the country can draw comfort from the fact that the investigation being carried out by the independent regulatory body set up by a Conservative Government will be open, frank and of high quality. We certainly did not have such a body when the last Labour Government were in office.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.),

That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question put and agreed to.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, my goodness. Does the hon. Gentleman want to be called in this debate?

Mr. Madden: I have not applied to speak in the debate, Mr. Speaker. If you remember, I said several hours ago, at the end of the private notice question on BCCI, that I wished to raise a point of order. A number of my constituents have lost their life savings as a result of the collapse of this bank, and others face redundancy because companies have collapsed as a result of the closure of the bank. They will resent the Prime Minister's charge that those who are seeking the truth about the reasons for the collapse of the bank are muck-raking.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the exchanges on the private notice question, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to a senior Labour councillor in Bradford as a salesman for BCCI. I have attempted to contact the hon. Member for Dorset, South by letter and telephone since he made those remarks. It will be known to many in Bradford that he was clearly referring to Councillor Mohd Ajeeb, a former lord mayor of Bradford, who was an adviser to the bank, but severed his links with it in 1989.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be, but what is the point of order for me? I cannot possibly know things like that, especially if names are not mentioned.

Mr. Madden: The point for you, Mr. Speaker, is that it was clearly an inaccurate smear and a slur, in the best traditions of muck-raking. I hope that you will require the hon. Member for South Dorset to withdraw those rather serious allegations.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible, as I have said several times, for what is said. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) may have been inaccurate—I have no knowledge of that—but he was certainly not out of order.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for causing you offence during the supplementary questions to the private notice question. It was a heated moment, when the Opposition were extraordinarily irritated by the Prime Minister's accusation of muck-raking. I draw your attention to the fact that, in the Parliament in which Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister, when he made a remark that was offensive to the then Leader of the Opposition—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—the Opposition withdrew their facilities and cross-party co-operation. The Leader of the House is here, and in front of him I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the service of Parliament that personal insults should be traded between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt those who have ears can hear.

Mr. Speaker: That may well be so, but many rough things are said in this Chamber, particularly in July and particularly as we approach the end of a Parliament. These things are often forgotten when we go into recess.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.—[Mr. Wood.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I am not able to impose any limit on speeches, but if speeches could be limited to not more than 10 minutes, and preferably a little less, then every hon. Member who wishes to be called will be able to speak and, I hope, will go away contented for the recess.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to respond to your strict injunction, and to be brief. Had you not been so stern, I might have suggested that one reason why the Adjournment should be diminished by one day, with the House rising on Friday rather than Thursday, is that we badly need an opportunity to debate the excellent record of the Government and particularly that of the Prime Minister. I do not expect that the bad losers on the Opposition Benches would agree with that, but then they wouldn't, would they?
As I shall not carry the Opposition with me on that subject, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to turn his attention to a different and rather less important matter, which nevertheless concerns me and I hope him, too. I am sure that my right hon. Friend reads The Times and that he will have had a chance to read the leading letter in it today, which calls attention to a matter that I have raised on previous occasions.
That is the strange reluctance of Departments and Ministers to carry through what many of us understand to be their obligation, under the Salmon Act 1986, to prepare and produce a report on the north-east drift-net fishery. The letter, which is signed by a distinguished collection of heads of angling bodies in England and Scotland, focuses on the continuing absence of statements on that subject. There was recently a brief series of exchanges in the House of Lords on the subject, and I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, at business questions on 11 July, whether he expected to be in a position to clear up some of the obscurity that surrounds the matter.
As the letter in The Times shows, this is an important matter. The letter begins by stressing that there is an obligation, and by regretting the absence of a positive response by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular. In the absence of a Government decision on the matter, England and Wales are virtually isolated in continuing to allow drift-net fishing for Atlantic salmon with monofilament nets. Scotland banned their use as early as 1962 and only Greenland and the Republic of Ireland permit this indiscriminate, wasteful and damaging practice, which entraps and kills sea birds and mammals as well as the creatures at which it is presumably aimed, the fish.
The provisional figures show that in 1990, the north-east drift-net fishery was the only salmon fishery in the United Kingdom to increase its catch, taking more than 51,000 fish and accounting for 60 per cent. of the salmon caught in the whole of England and Wales. As the letter says:


It is widely acknowledged that over 80 per cent. of the salmon taken by this fishery would otherwise have returned to their native Scottish rivers. There has been a serious decline in the Scottish catch, which was only 145,000 fish in 1990, compared with 278,000 in 1989, itself not a good year.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. He might like to know that we debated it in some depth on Thursday 11 July in the Scottish Grand Committee. While the decision has to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Scottish rivers are bearing the main brunt of the drift-net fishing. I agree that we should have an early answer from the Government on this point.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's valuable support. I know what a close interest he takes in this matter in Scotland. I am sure that he will agree that one of the ironies of the situation is that, whereas those who support the north-east drift-net fishery claim that it has a traditional status, as long ago as the 1950s, which is before it began to reach today's serious proportions, it was catching only 2,000 fish a year. The traditional catch from Scottish rivers has been much more than that for many years.
As the letter says:
'There is widespread international concern over the dramatic decline of salmon catches in the North Atlantic, with a drop of over 60 per cent. in the last 20 years. Conservation measures are now urgently required to reduce all forms of indiscriminate interceptory fishing and to restrict the catching salmon to their native rivers, where the level of fishing by traditional net or rod and line can be locally managed.'
Incidentally, the value of the salmon there is many times what it is in the sea.
It is a matter of great regret that at the time when Mr. Orri Vigfusson in Iceland has obtained the agreement of the Faroese fishermen to take a compensation payment in return for not fishing their deep sea salmon quotas, there is an apparent decision vacuum at the ministerial level.
Although the financing of compensation payments might have to come from private sources—principally from owners, tenants and others fishing the rivers most affected by the measures—it will be difficult for anyone to raise money for the purpose as long as there is no serious sign of any attempt by the Government to cut down on interceptory fishing. The immediate danger is that a failure to raise the British share of the finance for the Faroese agreement could cause the whole initiative to collapse. There were signs of that at the recent eighth annual meeting of the North Atlantic salmon conservation organisations in Edinburgh.
The letter continues:
We now publicly urge the government to come to a decision on the north-east drift-net fishery.
I support that plea. If my right hon. Friend cannot give us much more information today than he gave me on 11 July, I hope that he will at least try to explain the cause of the delay, Is it due to a departmental difference that cannot be resolved? If so, that is a pity; if an arbitrator is needed, I am sure that there will be no shortage of volunteers. The reason may be more deep-seated, however.
If the delay continues, the position will grow not better but worse. We shall find ourselves up against deadlines. The net limitation order must be renewed in 1992, unless the whole arrangement is to become a free-for-all again.
Many of us are worried about the absence of the necessary drive to represent British interests at EC level. I I am sure that Mr. Heinrik Schmiegelow, a Danish EC official, does his best to represent our interests, but a greater impetus is needed closer to home. I hope that we shall see some sign of that soon.
Let me echo the plea that others have already made for the announcment of a date by which a decision will be made—and an early date at that—so that we can see some prospect that this important matter, which should not be allowed to drag on, will be dealt with.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry that I missed the first minute or so of my hon. Friend's speech.
I was a member of the Committee that was promised Government action. All too often, my right hon. Friend—and, subsequently, other Committee members—received no proper explanation in response to their requests for information. One reason for our not delaying the passage of the Bill was an assurance from a Minister that we would be given a report and that it would be published. Astonishingly, there has been no hint of a reply to our questions—and certainly there has been no report.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend; he has enabled me to shorten my peroration. I well remember what was said in Committee, and I believe that Committee members have been disappointed by the lack of progress. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1035, which deals with disruption of the licensed trade and has the support of no fewer than 121 hon. Members on both sides of the House. I at once declare an interest, as parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
Let me stress immediately that many of the actions being taken by the big brewery companies, which are causing a great deal of distress, were not made necessary by the Beer Orders of December 1989, which followed a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has rightly drawn attention to that more than once. It is true to say, however, that that legislation acted as a catalyst; and, in that sense, those who signed the early-day motion believe that the Government have some responsibility to take remedial measures, although that may mean new legislation.
The fact is that the MMC, in its report, made a fundamental error, which was reflected in the Beer Orders. It did not appreciate a simple point, which I am sure that all hon. Members who are present will find easy to understand: people do not travel 50 or 100 miles to buy a pint of beer, even if it is a little cheaper there. To the customer, it does not really matter how many tied houses throughout the country are owned by a single brewery company. The degree of choice depends on the number of different breweries that supply beer in the area where the customer lives.
The legislation that was addressed to the national position, which required brewery companies to reduce the number of tied houses that they owned nationally, was irrelevant to competition in the retail market. But, because


the large companies must now divest themselves of about 11,000 tied houses, they are taking steps to ensure that they make more money out of those that they are allowed to keep. They are doing that at the expense of tenants and customers: that is at the heart of the problem.

Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a matter that I may mention later. Not only tenants and customers, but those living in the area surrounding a public house will strongly object to the change of user that will result from the rather shabby way in which the brewers have treated their tenants.

Mr. Crowther: I am sure that that point is valid. There is no doubt that literally thousands of pub tenants are now under notice to quit, and that is causing a good deal of distress. Many are being offered—in place of the traditional tenancy—a long lease at a rent that may be two, three or even four times as much as the present one, with full liability for repairs and renovations, but still tied to the brewery. If a tenant feels unable to accept the terms that are offered, his only option is to get out and to abandon a business which, in many instances, has been built up over many years, leaving his home at the same time. Almost uniquely, in this trade, business premises are virtually always the family home as well.

Mr. Rupert Allason: As one who signed the early-day motion, I have followed the dispute with interest.
I am advised that notices to quit are merely a technicality under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give individual tenants who find themselves in difficulties and who are offered long leases that are apparently very uneconomic?

Mr. Crowther: This is precisely why I have raised the matter in the House. I hope that, in due course, the Leader of the House will convey all these points to the Secretary of State; action is certainly needed.
I wish to be fair to the Secretary of State. He wrote to hon. Members very recently, setting out his position. I feel, however, that legislation will ultimately be needed. Until now, only one of the major companies has agreed to independent arbitration to assess a fair rent—Grand Metropolitan, which, perhaps ironically, is no longer a brewer, having transferred its breweries to Elders in return for an interest in the former Courage houses. At least it had agreed to independent arbitration. The problem for the tenant is that if—for reasons of age, for example—he does not feel able to accept a long lease, even at a rent fixed by an arbitrator, he will not be entitled to compensation and will be thrown out on the street without a penny. The other companies, however, have not even agreed to any form of arbitration. If, as they claim, the rents that they are demanding are fair, what have they to fear from independent arbitration?
If a licensee accepts a tied lease, at an enormously increased rent, certain consequences must follow. First, he will have to push up his prices to pay the extra rent. The first to suffer will be the customer. However, the tenant will still be competing with managed houses belonging to the same brewery company and with the working men's clubs. Trade is bound to decrease. The loss of trade that will be suffered by the brewery company will be compensated for by the extra rent that it will get out of the pub, but the

tenant will be squeezed between customers complaining about his prices and the brewery company charging an excessive rent. In those circumstances, many tenants will inevitably be squeezed out of business.
In other cases, especially in the case of the Bass empire, hundreds of tenants are being abolished and the houses taken back for management. That does not reduce the number of tied houses. A managed house is even more tied. Everything in a managed house—from the wines and spirits to a box of matches or a packet of crisps—will be supplied by the brewery company. Although the number of tied houses will not be reduced, the most profitable ones can then be run by an employee of the company rather than by a tenant in charge of his own business.
Many a Bass tenant, including many in my constituency, have spent years and a lot of money on building up sound businesses. They now face the choice of applying to buy or lease a pub somewhere else, which Bass will be putting on the market, or going out of the trade completely and losing their homes, with very little compensation, or applying for the job of manager, in which case Bass will graciously send somebody to interview them to see whether they are good enough to be appointed as managers of the pubs that they have been running for 10 or 20 years or more. That is literally adding insult to injury.
Unless the position changes dramatically, many tenants who have given good service to the public for years will be out on the street, either with no compensation at all or with the inadequate compensation provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. To his credit, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met, at his own request, representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, he undertook to speak to the heads of the big brewery companies and explain to them his views on what he believes to be the stress and damage that their actions are causing. The Secretary of State has circulated a letter to all hon. Members setting out his position, very reasonably and moderately, and I thank him for it. The only problem is that I doubt whether the brewery companies will take any notice of it. Unless we obtain an undertaking that there will be legislation early in the new Session, I fear that nothing will save the tenants.
The stated intentions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government have been completely frustrated by the brewery companies. We were told that one of those intentions was to give customers a better deal, through more competition. Ministers often talk of "sharpening" competition. When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report was published the four biggest brewery companies had 58 per cent. of the market, but today they have nearly 70 per cent. of the market. It is difficult to see how competition has been sharpened. Beer and lager prices have rocketed in the meantime, and I am afraid that they will continue to go up for a long time yet.
The second of the stated intentions was to provide better security for tenants. Unfortunately, when the Government were dealing with what is now the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act, they refused to bring forward the implementation date. They left that long gap during which brewers were able to move in and serve their notices to quit. The future of thousands of tenants, I am afraid, is very insecure. With the best will in the world, the Government got it wrong. I do not believe that anybody


loses credit by admitting that they made a mistake. The Government should admit that they made a mistake and take swift action to repair the damage.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like briefly to raise two issues. The first is that the north of England feels that it is not getting its fair share of the Housing Corporation budget. On 3 July, a group of representatives from north-west housing associations came to visit the north-west group of Conservative Members of Parliament. They put their case very well indeed. We felt a great deal of sympathy for them. As chairman of the group, I promised that I would press their case. I thought that tonight's debate would be an ideal opportunity to do so. Little did I realise at the time that today there would be not just a private notice question but three statements before we reached this debate.
Nobody disputes the value of housing associations. All of us agree that they perform a great service in providing affordable housing. Housing associations are funded by the Housing Corporation. I am told that its budget is due to grow by almost 100 per cent. during the period 1990 to 1994. During the same period, the number of dwellings provided will increase from about 19,000 a year to just under 40,000 a year.
That is very welcome news for those in housing need. However, the concern of the housing associations is that the three regions in the north of England—the north-east, the north-west and Merseyside—will get only a 7 per cent. share of the increased growth, with the other 93 per cent. going to the rest of the country. That flies in the face of urban policy, whereby resources are targeted on those areas in the greatest need. Whatever statistics one cares to examine—whether they be city challenge, the urban programme, the urban development corporations or estate action—the pattern is the same, with the north being awarded the major share. Therefore, these housing associations were at a loss to understand why their housing allocation over this period is so low.
This Government firmly believe in a policy of value for money, which I completely support. The greater the efficiency and the better the use that is made of resources, the more that can be done for those in need. Waste and inefficiency help no one. On the question of value for money, £1 million would provide 20 homes in the north, compared with 16 in the west and only 13 in London. Therefore, more homes could be provided for the same amount of money in the north. There is a desperate need for new housing in the north, because a larger proportion of pre-1919 housing stock is to be found there. Much of that stock is now in need of clearance or major repair.
In passing, may I point out that in the immediate post-war years we made a great mistake by building more and more council estates on the edges of towns and more and more multi-storey blocks of flats. We could have made much better use of what I, for want of a better word, would call the Coronation street type of terraced houses. If we had spent money on modernising them and putting them into better shape, people would have been much happier. They would have remained close to their place of work and within the tightly knit communities to which they had belonged for so many years.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about housing policy immediately after the war. Is he aware that in Norwich, particularly under the Labour-controlled city council, over-large council estates were built that have led to very serious problems? Due to lack of imagination, the council is not moving on to new policies involving housing associations. Is my hon. Friend aware of that fact, and does he agree that that is not a good policy?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with my hon. Friend. On every issue, we see eye to eye. In fairness, however, I must point out that what happened in the post-war years is a matter of history. We have to look to the future.
There is doubt in the north as to whether the Government's new policies for housing renewal areas can be delivered. That is because the communities there tend to have low incomes. Their ability to trade up and remain owner-occupiers is limited. Those problems are compounded by minimal levels of capital receipts from asset sales.
Perhaps the greatest remaining challenge in public sector housing is the unused stock of local authority estates, which unfortunately is mainly in northern England. The housing needs index, which decides the flow of housing association resources, does not have an indicator that recognises stock condition problems in the local authority sector.
For many years, housing investment programme allocations enabled authorities to maintain existing stock only, and the amount of finance available has not allowed major repairs to be made. That is why the estate action scheme was created, and housing action trusts were expected to tackle the worst problems. I regret that, for political ends, housing action trusts were not as successful as they should have been.
Housing associations play an important part in the estate action initiative, and adequate resources will be necessary if the problems of local authority estates are to be properly tackled. Hulme in Manchester will have the help of five housing associations in replacing all local authority stock, using the five-year rolling programme of targeted housing association grant. The Government seem to accept that housing associations have an important part to play in regenerating local authority estates in the north, but I wonder how that can be squared with inadequate funding for northern housing associations.
Nobody denies that the major problem is homelessness and that it is most severe in London. After all, it is the capital city and, like all capital cities, it tends to be a magnet. However, should we not be considering the underlying causes and trying to prevent young people from migrating to London from other parts of the country? To achieve that, we need better employment prospects, a better environment and better housing conditions in the north, which surely are the core objectives of urban policy. I am told that 30 per cent. of London's homeless people—the largest single group—come from the north. Therfore, it makes sense to improve prospects in the north, in the hope that it will reduce the number of young people who decide to head for London.
The housing associations that visited our group on 3 July were particularly concerned about the housing needs index. They believe that it distorts the distribution of housing association resources, in contrast with urban policy initiatives by other Departments. They believe that


it is a device of officialdom. It is a set of indicators, however inappropriate, that have been arrived at and will be maintained unless they are challenged, which is the reason for my speech.
I do not want to go on about the north-south divide, because I recognise the problems that homelessness poses in the south. I wonder whether the Government have considered releasing a larger percentage of capital receipts in southern-based authorities, which could be channelled into tackling homelessness.
I pay tribute to the work of housing associations, which have achieved much in improving the quality of life and in tackling housing shortages, but I was asked to draw attention to the distribution of housing association resources because it is feared that the north will be seriously under-resourced at a time of growing need.
The second point that I want to raise is the implementation of the Ibbs report. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say how many jobs will be lost in the House and which departments will be affected? I am told that many of the Badge Messengers are concerned about job losses. I am particularly concerned about consulting those whose jobs are at risk. I have been told of someone who has worked in the House for more than 20 years and has never been carpeted or warned about his work. That person is concerned about rumours that his job will be advertised. Last week, he sought a meeting with one of the Clerks and was told that his post was to be upgraded, that head-hunters had been asked to do a search and that the post would be advertised nationally in September.

Mr. Tony Banks: Cruel.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is absolutely cruel.
Apparently, the interview board will be chaired by a civil servant and will include Officers of the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has got the picture. That amounts to a casual approach to the job of somebody who has loyally served the House for many years. If an employer outside the House behaved in such a way, there would be severe criticism from many hon. Members. We would all be indignant, and I am all the more indignant that we are behaving in this way. It shows a complete failure of human relations, and it is unworthy of the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give me satisfactory answers to the two points that I have made before we rise for the summer.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wish to raise briefly a matter that we should discuss before we rise. On 22 May, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whether the Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC taking on a role of mediation in Yugoslavia and perhaps helping to provide part of a peace-keeping force. He said:
I do not think that the European Community should play such a role."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 919]
He further said that the only way of pursuing the matter was through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
In that respect, the Foreign Office lacked forethought, because that is not what has happened. I therefore raise the

matter because I am afraid that the situation has not significantly improved, and we should discuss it before we adjourn.
I lost two constituents in the Gulf war. When I was Liberal foreign affairs spokesman, I repeatedly said that the Government should be much more stringent and critical in their trading and general relations with Iraq. I do not want to see another crisis, such as a war in the Balkans resulting in yet more unnecessary deaths, which is a possibility that one cannot put aside.
I spoke on the telephone last night to a lady in Zagreb called Lidija Jorkovic, who is a Croatian Liberal Democrat. She attended the annual congress of the European Liberal Democrats in Poitiers in June to draw attention to the gravity of the situation. She told me that there was the most enormous fear and anxiety in Croatia about the intentions of the Army and the Serbian hierarchy. There was much killing going on, some of which was not reported in the press.
It is noticeable that, in term of media coverage, the issue has gone off the boil because it is not exciting enough. We are not getting much coverage, but it is going on. The withdrawal of the Army from Slovenia was welcomed by the Liberals in Croatia and by President Tudjman, hut it is suspected that the reason for that was to give the Army more freedom to act in Croatia.
The European Community, acting in a way that in May the Minister of State told me it had no business to be doing, has so far made a valuable if limited contribution. It has succeeded in negotiating a three-month breathing space, and has sent in observers to try to monitor it. That is good, but we would be foolish to think that it has solved anything. I want to be assured by the Leader of the House that the Government are taking this matter exceedingly seriously and are doing something positive.
One of the outcomes of what took place in Iraq and Kuwait is that the two basic concepts on which our international relations were founded—non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and the territorial integrity of all states—are now outdated. We interfered in Iraq because of what was happening to the Kurds. Indeed, we are still interfering and are liable to do so again.
We have reached the stage when all nations can look to the possibility of the United Nations becoming much more involved in breaches of human rights in other countries than it did before. After all, national boundaries throughout the world have been drawn not by consent, but by war and imperial conquest. Yugoslavia is quite a dramatic and tragic example. Many of the lines are in the wrong places, and they will have to be reviewed at some stage.
In the end, it is not a question of just holding things together. The question is what is right, what people want and what is fair. If that question is not put, international justice has no meaning. That is the background against which we are operating.
Immediately now, Britain as part of the European Community must give active consideration to the matter. I do not expect the Minister to declare details, but I want some assurance that the United Kingdom, in co-operation with its Community colleagues, is giving a lot of thought to the matter. We may require to provide a peace-keeping force to keep the two sides apart. People should think seriously, in conjunction with the Yugoslavs, about redrawing boundaries in Yugoslavia. That has all been said to be terribly complicated and awfully difficult, but in


many places it is not as difficult as all that. If there is to be peace between Serbia and Croatia, and between Serbia and Albania, that will have to be done.
As we go into recess, I hope that the Government are giving thought and attention to those matters, and to the tragedy that is going on in which we might, as a country, be involved at some stage. I want to prevent that happening and I want a peaceful outcome to be achieved. I am still not satisfied that the Government are giving as much priority to the matter as they should.

Mr. John Ward: I wish to detain the House for a short time to ask that we consider the role of the present regulations if one local authority—in my case, Dorset county council—seeks to dispose of land that it regards as surplus to educational requirements and says that it is required by Government regulation to sell the land for the best possible price. In practice, this means that Poole borough council would be unable to purchase the land for recreational purposes.
I can best illustrate the problem by giving two short examples. In the Canford Heath area of my constituency, there has been much housing development in recent years and recreational facilities are limited. In the Bader road area of Canford Heath, there is a strip of land some 150 m wide, which for many years has provided a buffer between the houses and industrial development, and it is laid out as a sports area. It is an important green lung for the Canford Heath residents. It has wildlife, wild flowers and hedges, and is much valued by local people.
The county council has declared some 3.8 hectares—about two thirds of the total—surplus to educational requirements, and there is concern that the county council will give itself planning permission for industrial development, thus raising the price of the land to a level well beyond what Poole borough council could afford to pay for it.
Apart from the loss of the open space, the residents of Bader road now have the prospect of industrial development right up to the boundary of their property. If that happens, the recreational land will be lost for ever to the people who are supposed, after all, to own it.
We complain frequently when young people roam the streets and get into mischief, yet here is a proposal to deprive hundreds of youngsters of a place in which to play and to develop their interest in sport. Some 136 football matches were played there last year, in addition to the normal training sessions. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Poole borough council—rightly, in my opinion—has shown the area as a public open space on the local structure plan.
I turn now to the second case. Parkstone grammar school—in my constituency—has taken advantage of recent Acts to reverse the previous fall in pupil numbers and considers that it is now short of playing fields, as calculated by the regulations of the Department of Education and Science. The parents of pupils at the school have recently voted by an overwhelming majority to seek grant-maintained status and it is important to them that they start off with the right and adequate facilities.
An area of playing fields previously used by the school has now been designated by the county council as surplus

to educational requirements and, by giving itself planning approval for industrial use, the county council has enhanced the value of the land. With increasing numbers at the grammar school, the governors are of the view that the land in question should be returned to them.
The county council's reply to complaints about its actions in both cases has been twofold—first, that the money is needed for capital expenditure and secondly, that it is required by Government regulation to obtain the highest possible price for surplus land.
The first reason—the need for additional capital—can, in my view, be met by other disposals. The county council's 50 per cent. share in Hurn airport is one thing that comes to mind. To sell would make more sense than depriving the people of Poole of one of the last open spaces in the area available for organised games.
The second reason—the matter of Government policy—is more complex. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment can give his specific consent to exempt a local authority from the need to maximise the cash received from the sale of assets. I have already written to the Secretary of State about this, and I hope that he will consider that course of action very carefully, as I have clearly shown that the land is needed by local people, who own it anyway.
I know that the Government already advise local authorities to consider community needs before disposing of surplus educational land for development and that they propose to reinforce that advice in a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation, which they hope to issue shortly. I hope that the county council will reconsider its position in light of the forthcoming guidance note.
There is, I believe, another reason for the Secretary of State to intervene. There is a feeling—I put it no higher than that—that there is not a universal welcome at county hall for local suggestions that some of the district councils in east Dorset—Poole among them—will seek to become unitary authorities under the proposals for the reform of the structure of local government. In the case of the grammar school, there is concern that the grant-maintained status proposal will not make negotiations over land with the county council any easier.
The House heard the Prime Minister describe the citizens charter this afternoon—a welcome proposal that I fully support. I believe that the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment must consider carefully their policy on the disposal of local authority land, especially in urban areas. In the cases that I have detailed, I hope that they will come down on the side of the citizens of Poole. That would truly be the citizens charter in action.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents. I felt that it was important that the House should have the matter before it before adjourning for the summer.
The Rover works at Cowley started its summer recess, as it were, on Friday of last week. Unlike this House, they will be back in two weeks' time. As is often the case just before the works holiday, there were accouncements that cast a shadow over the autumn ahead, in the form of staff


redundancies at Cowley of 180, and the news that production of the Montego and Maestro is to go on a four-day week from 16 September.
The redundancies are part of 1,300 job losses, also affecting workers at Longbridge, Swindon and Gaydon. Those are justified by Rover in terms of the ratio of white-collar to production staff and the need to ensure that the company operates at its most competitive in comparison with Japanese producers.
However, the four-day schedules, which also affect Longbridge production of the rover 200 and 400 from mid-August to October, are a product of the depression of sales right across the industry, itself a direct result of Government policies of high interest rates, the Budget increases in VAT, the other Budget measures that added to the cost of motoring and the special car tax.
It needs to be stressed to the House and to Government just how serious this slump in demand is. In the first six months of this year, new car sales in the United Kingdom were down 24 per cent. on the same period last year, itself a bad year. Sales for the industry as a whole have slumped from 2·3 million in 1989 to an estimated 1·55 million last year. As The Independent on Sunday put it yesterday:
Britain's car industry is in the deepest recession it has ever known.
The particular tragedy for my constituents is that, against that background, Rover has been doing relatively well. In the light of last week's announcements, it is important to put that on the record. The company has some of the best models it has ever produced, and a new model in the top-of-the-range Rover 800 series, produced at Cowley, will be launched this autumn. Industrial relations, quality and the commitment of the work force to efficient production have never been better, despite the painful cuts in the labour force which, in the past 12 years, have seen employment at Cowley fall from more than 20,000 to around 5,000.
As I am sure the House will understand, I am extremely concerned that those remaining workers should have a prosperous and secure future. On the sites that Rover is vacating at Cowley, I am also concerned that there should be the closest co-operation between the company, the local council, the business community and the trade unions to ensure that high value-added jobs, including manufacturing jobs, are provided for those workers who would otherwise have looked to Rover for emploment.
Through the depths of the recession, the company's performance has held out hope for the future. I have already referred to the quality of its cars and their production. Indeed, in the first six months of this year, Rover increased its penetration of the United Kingdom car market from 14·1 per cent. to 15·1 per cent. However, the recession has meant that this is equivalent to a bigger share of a much smaller market, so that Rover's United Kingdom car sales have, in fact, fallen from 150,000 last year to 121,000.
Export sales have been doing well, with particularly impressive performances in Germany where sales were up in the first half of this year by 39 per cent. on the same period last year. Sales were up in Italy by 44 per cent. and by 54 per cent. in Spain. However, as The Times reported last week:
Even buoyant export sales have not been enough to prevent production cuts.
In the same article, Rover was quoted as saying:

The weak home market is having its effect, so that although we are doing well in relation to our competitors, there are simply not enough sales there to prevent these cuts.
All the signs of a very deep recession are present right across the industry. Other producers' sales are sharply down, and Ford at Halewood has been on a three-day week. Price and advertising wars have broken out, fleet orders are down, and many car dealerships are in desperate difficulty following on the heels of the 340 that went bust in the year to March.
In those circumstances, I think that the very least that is required from the Government is an acknowledgement of the grave slump that they have brought about and a commitment to an urgent review of the impact of their policies on the industry.
The Budget added a £1,480 million taxation burden to motoring costs on the current year, and an estimated extra burden of £1,715 million next year. The VAT increase put up the tax take on new cars to 27·5 per cent. That included the incredible double taxation of VAT being levied on the special car tax itself. That 27·5 per cent. burden compares with the effective rate of tax on new cars of 14 per cent. in Germany and 22 per cent. in France.
The Government are always claiming that lower tax rates can increase the total tax take. Why have they so conspicuously failed to apply that logic to car tax? In present circumstances, the special car tax is a nonsense which the Transport and General Workers Union, in its welcome campaign, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders deserve praise for exposing.
That high rate of taxation compared with major competitors puts Rover at a particular disadvantage, because it depresses car sales in its domestic market, which is invariably a crucial foundation for successful performance. As things stand, the Government's policies of recession and high car tax are desperately damaging the entire British car industry. The Prime Minister should change course before still more damage is inflicted.
As for Cowley, I shall be meeting Sir Graham Day this Friday to put the following points. First, faced with the sales position, which is not of the company's making, I applaud the fact that the four-day production schedule in the autumn is to be used to provide training on the fifth day for workers on the new Rover 800 model. One very important lesson we must learn in Britain is the importance of training during a recession so that we are better placed for the upturn. I greatly hope that that training can be organised on the fifth day at Cowley in such a way that the workers do not lose bonus earnings.
Secondly, there must be close collaboration on planning the development of those sites at Cowley that will be surplus to the company's future requirements. That must be done in such a way that former Rover workers, their families and those who would have looked to Rover for employment get their full and fair share of the opportunities that the development of those sites provide.
Thirdly, I repeat the calls that I have made in the past stressing the importance to Cowley of securing investment in new models in addition to the excellent Rover 800 range. In view of the record on industrial relations, productivity and quality at Cowley, the skills of the work force and the available capacity, there is a strong case for another model to be produced there.
That would be a further vote of confidence in Cowley's future following on the investment in the Rover 800. No one at a car plant is ever happy with dependence on a


single model, however successful, for the very good reason that the whole future of that plant is up for grabs every time a decision must be taken on updating or replacing that model. However, that will otherwise be the case at Cowley when Maestro and Montego production eventually end.
I believe that it is beyond doubt that Cowley, which the company has repeatedly said should be its executive production centre, deserves the vote of confidence that a new model represents. The depth of a recession might seem to some a curious time to be advocating new investment. However, I simply say that history shows that it is those who invest wisely in the recession who are ready to meet demand in the upturn.
That investment will be supported by the economic and fiscal policies of the next Labour Government that will remove the ball and chain at present sabotaging my constituents' hard work.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I want to use the opportunity of this debate to protest here on the Floor of the House of Commons against the abysmal failure of the educational authorities in the North Down area, which I represent, to provide proper facilities for primary school pupils.
Time after time, I have complained bitterly about the abnormally large number of primary schools that have to make do with temporary classrooms in huts or in portakabins. This afternoon, the Prime Minister launched the citizens charter with tremendous fervour and publicity. I fully support such a charter, which may help to give some muscle to the citizens in confrontation with the power of colossal commercial organisations or faceless bureaucracy. What about the rights of parents who are shamefully denied proper educational facilities for their boys and girls?
Every primary school in the North Down area that I have visited has one or more temporary classrooms, usually in wooden huts that were meant as a short-term emergency measure. In the name of the parents in my constituency and their children, I demand decent classrooms for those boys and girls.
I want to refer to one such primary school, Kilmaine primary school in Bangor. That school has an excellent reputation because of the dedication and ability of the principal, the staff and the parents who take an active interest in it. Kilmaine primary school has an enormous number of pupils many of whom have to be accommodated for lessons in portakabins. The primary school has a catchment area that includes Ballycrochan, Silverbirch and Ashbury.
Ashbury is an area of vast private housing developments with a high percentage of young married couples. One of the major reasons why those young married couples bought their homes in Ashbury was that they had been promised a new primary school. I have pressed for such a school for some time. I had also urged the provision of a health centre in Ashbury. A large notice was erected some years ago promising a new primary school in 1990. The notice is still there, but the promise has never been fulfilled. I repeat my demand for a clear assurance from the Government that they will redeem that

promise. I solemnly urge the replacement of all portakabins and wooden huts with permanent, purpose-built classrooms in North Down. Furthermore, I call for the building of a new primary school for the boys and girls of Ashbury and the surrounding area. New primary schools are also needed in other areas of my constituency.
Finally, may I make a plea on behalf of those boys and girls who are not of primary school age. There is no nursery school provision in, for example, Ashbury and many other parts of my constituency. Despite the fact that many homes in Ashbury are owned by young people with toddlers or a family on the way, there is no nursery provision there. Something should therefore be done to make provision for a nursery school or pre-school playgroups in Ashbury, other parts of Bangor and the entire North Down constituency.

Mr. David Winnick: So that there is a linkage in the debate, may I say that I agreed with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) when he referred to the possibility that some people who have been employed in the House for many years—he quoted an example of someone who had been employed for 20 years—could face redundancy. That is totally unacceptable, and I hope that, when the Leader of the House winds up, he will reassure us on those points.
In some respects it seems a little unreal for this Parliament to be continuing. In 1983 and 1987, the election had come and gone by this time in the lives of those Parliaments. The fact that, this time around, no election has taken place after four years is not surprising. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know why. The explanation could not be clearer. The Government have not had the courage or confidence to go to the country, or there would almost certainly have been an election and the date would probably have been June.
We shall go into the summer recess with the recession deepening and unemployment continuing to grow throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to the redundancies in his constituency. We all share the anxiety about those redundancies, as well as those that are occuring in so many parts of the country.
It certainly gives me no joy to say that, in the west midlands, we are experiencing yet again the large-scale redundancies, closures and dole queues that we saw under this same Government 10 years ago. We were then told that it was a once-for-all operation because we needed leaner industry. Enough people then lost their jobs, and some of the companies that were closed have never been reopened. Unfortunately, the tragedy is happening all over again in the west midlands and causing deep concern to the people there—above all, of course, those directly affected and their families.
Unlike 10 years ago, the present recession is also taking place in the south-east, with more people having to face all the difficulties of redundancies and the tremendous obstacles of trying to find new jobs in the present economic climate. I tried to introduce a Bill, which the Government did not support, which would have made it illegal to discriminate in job advertisements on grounds of age. The present economic difficulties affect not only the young but many people in the age group of many hon. Members now present—

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend should speak for himself

Mr. Winnick: With some exceptions. In some cases, those who have been made redundant will know that they are unlikely ever to work again because they have reached the age of 50 or perhaps just over.
The press tell us that the Prime Minister was in an upbeat mood last Thursday when he addressed the 1922 Committee—I see Conservative Members nodding—with all the praise of the Tory press ringing in his ears. The position is perfectly clear: if the Prime Minister feels so confident and upbeat, why does he not call an election? Let us get it over and done with. The Prime Minister should let the electorate decide. With the citizens charter announced earlier today, we would imagine that the Government had been in office for only a few months. They have been in office for 12 long years, and if they believe that they can hoodwink the electorate with a few gimmicks, they will find the situation very different and difficult. I shall not shed any tears for them.
May I deal now with an issue that is far less controversial, if controversial at all? I refer to the three grenadier guardsmen who lost their legs during a training exercise abroad in July 1989. All those who have heard about the case, which has been publicised particularly in the past few weeks, have come to the same view as hon. Members on both sides of the House—that adequate compensation should be paid. I raised the matter again during business questions last Thursday, and asked for a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence before this Thursday. It is important that there should be a satisfactory conclusion to this matter as quickly as possible.
I welcome the talks that have taken place between the solicitor acting for the three grenadier guardsmen and Ministry of Defence officials. Last Monday, The Times referred to the case, and the leader said that it supported the campaign for adequate compensation. It also contained a story about the three guardsmen, one of whom, Sean Povey, is a constituent of mine. The article quotes another of the guardsmen, Adrian Hicks, who has now left the Army, as saying:
They should see the performance I have to go through when it's trouser changing day … First, take old jeans off artificial legs. Squat on the bed while pulling new jeans onto artificial legs. Insert stumps into artificial legs. Wriggle trousers into position. You're sat up trying to do this and you're top heavy, unstable, because you don't have the weight of your legs while you're pulling and heaving. I really hate doing that job, I hate it!
He continues:
It can take 25 minutes and I'm always sweating at the end of it. I'll crawl around half the morning, to and from the bathroom, rather than face up to it.
He says that the frustration occasionally becomes too much and he throws the legs across the room. He also says that, since he was discharged from the Army last December, he has twice tried to get a job but has been interviewed for neither application, and he is still trying to find a job.
We all know, and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has told the House, that a pension is being paid, but the Minister has confirmed that the three soldiers were in no way responsible for what occurred. They were on a training exercise and a shell exploded while they were digging a trench, causing the three soldiers to lose their legs. My constituent, Sean Povey, is still in a military

hospital two years after the tragedy occurred. As the Minister said, whoever is responsible, it is certainly not the three soldiers.
The soldiers joined the Army for the very best of reasons. I have already told the House what the teacher said about how proud Sean Povey was to join the Army, and how he came to the school in his uniform. There is no doubt that he, like the other two, would have continued in the Army for many years to come.
The three soldiers were not victims of a terrorist attack or anything similar, but were involved in a training exercise that went horribly wrong. I believe and, in the light of a number of signatures on various motions, it is clear that the majority of hon. Members believe, that compensation should be paid and justice done. I am reasonably hopeful that justice will be done, but do not let us delay or let the weeks and months drag on, adding to the mental anxiety of the three soldiers who have already suffered so much and are crippled for life. Let us achieve an honourable and satisfactory settlement as quickly as possible—I hope that it can be concluded before the House rises for the summer recess.

Sir Anthony Grant: As an old Dragoon guardsman, I hope that the Government will heed carefully what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. I think that the whole House hopes that something can be done for those unfortunate soldiers. At the same time, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will totally disregard the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which we could well have done without.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that started in my constituency and has wider ramifications. In 1987, the Department of the Environment effected a change in the planning law that had considerable adverse effects. I refer to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988—in particular, the new class A3 on food and drinks. The effect of the orders was to put what were previously different activities into the same class. They placed restaurants, public houses and takeaways in the same class, which meant that planning permission was not required when the use of a building changed from one purpose to another within that class.
The reasons for the orders are obscure, but may have something to do with speeding up development. When someone tells me that the reason for a change is to speed things up, I am profoundly suspicious and certain that something unpleasant will follow, and so it has. It is interesting that the change has never been debated in the House. It was ordered under delegated legislation and we never had a chance to consider it. The results have been all too apparent, as I can illustrate by explaining a case in my constituency.
My constituency contains the lovely village of Shelford, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is familiar, and with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are not wholly unfamiliar. The case was brought to me by Councillor Mrs. Brenda Bishop and a large number of other constituents. There is a pleasant rural pub called The Chequers, which the brewers sold. The purchaser proposed to change it into a Chinese fish and chip takeaway, which caused an outcry among all those in


Shelford who had fears about smells, litter and parking problems. They made representations to the local authority, but, as a result of the change in the law, it was absolutely powerless even to consider the representations and anxieties of the citizens that it represented.
The residents would much prefer to have the public house. Not all public houses are wonderful; where I live in Cambridge there is one pub that I would willingly exchange for a Chinese takeaway. However, pubs generally, certainly in my constituency and I expect in many others, are part of the village scene and contribute to the character of a rural community. I have 57 villages in my constituency.
There was a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the shabby treatment by brewers of licensees—a case powerfully made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), with whom I wholeheartedly agree, and whose early-day motion I signed. As a result of that shabby treatment, I believe that there may be many more pubs in the same position and many more villages, not only in my constituency but in many rural constituencies throughout the country, which will be adversely affected as a result of the change in the planning laws, which have wide repercussions. I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has—as the hon. Member for Rotherham said—written to all hon. Members to urge brewers to have more consideration for their licensees. I hope that that pressure will continue.
There has been concern about the issue. The Department of the Environment ordered art inquiry into the effect of the changes in the Use Classes Order. A firm called Wootton Jeffreys, Consultants, investigated the problem. I do not know how or what that firm did, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning answered a written question by saying:
Although the researchers found some evidence of increased traffic generated by more intensive use of former industrial land, no other adverse effects on amenity or the environment were associated with the business use class. I am therefore satisfied that there is no case on environmental grounds for amending the business use class.
I am not satisfied. My hon. Friend continued:
I have concluded that to amend legislation which applies uniformly throughout England and Wales in response to these concerns would not be justified.
My hon. Friend continued:
The research revealed evidence of some local controversy resulting from changes of use involving fast-food and take-away outlets within the food and drink use class. I am also aware of some misgivings over changes of use to and from public houses within that use class. I am not persuaded that a case has been made for adjusting the present scope for changes of use in the high street sector, where the researchers found that market activity has been generally subdued"—
whatever that means—
since 1987 … There is some very localised evidence of harm to amenity, through increased traffic and general activity, associated with the conversion of hostels into hotels, but this is insufficient to merit amending the Order … However, the Government propose to continue to monitor closely the effects of the Use Classes Order and General Development Order and we are minded to commission further research in another three to five years."—[Official Report, 13 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 619–20.]
I am fond of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is an excellent fellow and does a marvellous job, but that was a remarkably complacent

reply, and I am not satisfied for one moment. I do not think that the response is good enough, particularly as that case occurred in a conservation area. I do not believe that the consultants' inquiry considered the effect of the change in the law in conservation areas, for which special consideration should be given.
There has never been an opportunity to raise the problems on the Floor of the House, as the legislation was done through ministerial order and written answer. I have no objection to written answers, but this was too important a matter to be swept away. My hon. Friend should look at the matter again, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my strong views to my hon. Friend the excellent Minister for Housing and Planning.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to speak on the effect of the Government's so-called education reforms. I took the trouble to contact local primary school heads in my constituency for an end-of-term report on the effect of implementing the Government's education changes, especially those in relation to local management of schools and the standard assessment tests. As a consequence of the many replies that I have received, I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Science asking for a number of changes to be made.
There is an urgent need for the Government to reinstate the salaries of staff to be paid from the central funds rather than schools having a devolved budget, which contains only average salaries. Although schools with fewer than 200 pupils are protected from the damaging and unpopular salary rule, the comments that I received from many head teachers make it clear that protection should be extended to all schools. Far too many of those letters read as follows:
Because of pupil-driven funding, we are having to lose two full-time members of our teaching staff",
or:
The final situation regarding this school means that it has to reduce its staffing level by 1·5 teachers by redeployment.
I wholeheartedly agree with the head teacher who wrote:
Pupil-led funding will inevitably lead to the employment of younger, less experienced staff because of the need to cut costs. A single small school unit is too small to create a proper staff-cost distribution.
Another head wrote:
You will appreciate that all heads have a high regard for those experienced and dedicated teachers who have given loyal service and still have a great deal to offer, and it is their contribution that is being denigrated in that their actual salaries are not a composite part of the formula. We feel that we are being penalised for the quality and experience of our staff.
Yet another head teacher wrote:
We did, however, take finances into consideration when making recent appointments"—
although he quickly qualified that by adding:
but I can assure you all other aspects were equal"—
ending ominously with the rider,
on this occasion.
The same head teacher added:
I agree that to have to consider finance first would be a very sad day for this profession. We have a very generous special needs budget at this school, which we had to deploy, in part, to support this year's staffing. It is very wrong not to have actual salaries allocated to schools.


I agree. Those statements are moving and desperate. The effect on special needs budgets especially gives food for thought, and that head teacher's comment was not unique.
Another head teacher laid bare the real impact of local management of schools so eloquently that it is worth quoting him at length:
This school is in an area of social disadvantage and deprivation and high unemployment, and the majority of our children could be said to have special needs: emotional, behavioural learning difficulties. To meet those needs, we need to be able to employ experienced and therefore expensive teachers. We had more than £20,000 put into our budget for special needs, although that has been subsumed in staff costs, and as far as practical usage is concerned, it does not exist. Our main concern is that although we have successfully integrated children with special needs, and statemented children in the past, we shall be unable to continue to do so. Staff are now having to cope with large classes in a deteriorating environment and with constant external vandalism. We feel as though we are in a downward spiral, which can only result in the limiting of educational opportunities for our disadvantaged children and greater stress for our staff.
That reveals a sad state of affairs, and one that the Government should seriously consider. It is a damning indictment of their reforms.
What is the justification for devolved budgets with only average salaries? Recently, the Department of Education and Science stated:
Pupil-led funding is one of the key principals of LMS because it ensures that schools have a clear incentive to attract pupils by offering the best possible education.
In the light of the letters that I received from head teachers, that sounds like meaningless rhetoric, and it bears no relation to the facts. The Department's letter added:
It is misleading, to say the least, to say that schools are funded on the basis of average teaching salaries; the LMS formula does not fund the teachers, it funds the pupils.
That is such a weasel-worded argument that it adds insult to injury for those head teachers who took the trouble to write to me. It appears that indifference and ideology have taken over from common sense and compassion.
I question whether a systematic attempt is being made to create a two-tier education system in which schools are tempted to opt out by the lure of a better system of resourcing. Is the aim to have good and bad schools, not just for those aged from 11 to 18, as was the case under the old grammar school system, but for children from the age of five? That is a chilling and unhappy prospect. The question of actual salaries centrally funded, as opposed to average costs within a devolved budget, requires urgent review. If it is thought necessary and right to protect schools having fewer than 200 pupils, why is it not thought necessary and right to protect all schools?
The standard assessment test seems to be constantly under review—if not by the Department of Education and Science, then at the personal instructions of the Prime Minister. This comment was made by almost every head teacher who wrote to me:
They were completely successful but involved a great deal of disruption for the children, who have as a result not been educated for a full school year due to the inordinate time spent on testing. They also caused unnecessary worry for the teachers. When the aggregations were finally resolved and the results obtained, it was evident that they provided no more information about the children's progress and development than teachers already knew from their own assessment and recording practices.
Another point mentioned was the availability of national curriculum books in local bookshops at a cost of around

£200 for the full set. Clearly, the children of parents who can afford to buy their own enjoy an advantage. That is something that the Department should also consider.
The Government's so-called reforms are a sham and they are damaging the education of many children. It would be a good idea if the Prime Minister turned his attention to the serious problems that I described, instead of messing about with his so-called citizens charter. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to be the pooper scooper of the Thatcher years, I suggest that he takes a good look at what has been done to our schools.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that has been perplexing me for some time. Over the past few months, and virtually unreported by the world press and therefore unnoticed by the public, President Gorbachev has quietly been signing a series of defence treaties with the Heads of Government of the leading nations of Europe—in particular, Germany, France, Italy and, two weeks ago, Spain.
Article 3 of the Soviet-German treaty signed on 9 November 1990 between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev reads:
Should either side become the object of an attack, the other side will not afford any military support or other assistance to the aggressor.
That wording is almost identical to that included in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 23–24 August 1939:
Should one of the contracting parties become the object of belligerant action by a third power, the other contracting party shall in no manner lend its support to this third power.
Article 2 of the 1990 Soviet-German pact reads:
They"—
that is, the Germans and Soviets—
regard and will continue to regard as inviolable the frontiers of all states in Europe as they exist on the day of signature of the present treaty.
One must assume from that Germany's agreement to the present status of the Baltic states. It, too, has echoes of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact—specifically, the first of their secret protocols.
Article 8 of the Soviet-French treaty signed on 29 October 1990 reads:
In the event that one of the sides wishes to establish relations of co-operation with an international organisation of which it is not a member, the other side shall lend it its assistance.
Does that mean that France was bound by treaty to act on President Gorbachev's behalf for a seat at the G7 summit? That might be one reason why France and Italy do not want their treaties with the Soviet Union to be in the public domain.
Many issues are raised by the treaties, which have been signed bilaterally by some of the most ardent proponent nations of a federalist Europe. Time permits me to focus on only one of the issues, and that is the extent to which the Soviet-German and Soviet-Italian treaties undermine the NATO charter. My view is that they undermine it seriously. If, for instance, the Soviet Union were to attack Norway, Britain would be bound under its NATO obligations to go to the assistance of the Norwegians. In that event, and under the terms of the Soviet-German treaty, might not the Germans be inhibited from assisting us? [Interruption.]
One view is that under the terms of article 5 of the NATO charter an attack on one NATO state is deemed to


be an attack on all the allies, and that it would therefore be possible to argue that, in the example that I have just put before the House, Britain would be engaged in a defensive action and that the terms of the Soviet-German agreement would not then be activated. [Interruption.]
There are now two treaties that govern Germany's response to military tension, and that must weaken the deterrent value of NATO. Given the enormous—this is an answer to the sedentary interjections of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—qualitative and quantitative improvements in the Soviet armed forces in recent months and the generally unstable nature of that country, surely these matters cannot be taken lightly.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he will arrange, before the House adjourns later this week, for a full analysis of the Soviet treaties to be placed before the House so that we can judge whether they affect any vital British interests. It is important that their full implications can be assessed in the context of the intergovernmental conference discussions leading up to the Maastricht meeting in the autumn. I shall be grateful to know what treaty overtures have been made to the British Government by the Government of the Soviet Union and the response of our Government if, as I have cause to believe, such overtures have been made.

Mr. Tony Banks: We have just heard a blast from the past. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) must be one of the few who is determined to try to keep the cold war alive. His questions—I agree that they are pertinent—could have been directed to Mr. Gorbachev last week. After all, the Prime Minister was walking up and down the Terrace introducing Mr. Gorbachev to hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman could have obtained some pretty direct information from Mr. Gorbachev. He has raised matters that no Opposition Member is especially worried about at this stage, and I suspect that that goes for many Members on the Government Benches. We must all be grateful for that. We must be particularly grateful to Mr. Gorbachev and for the monumental changes that are taking place in eastern Europe.
I wish to register my protest that we are having such a long summer recess. It is well understood by hon. Members that the recess is not a holiday, but that is not understood by some outside this place. It is certainly not understood by those malevolent, brain-dead journalists who insist that the summer recess is a long holiday and that as soon as we finish on Thursday we shall all decamp to Caribbean islands where we will stay until we are summoned back to this place on 25 October. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "14 October."] I shall probably miss the first week back as I shall be continuing to sip my ping colada on a Caribbean beach.
For regular attenders of the sittings of the House, such as myself, the summer recess provides an opportunity for hon. Members to catch up with all the work that perhaps we wanted to do that does not relate directly to our constituencies. The theory goes, however, that our job is to hold the Executive to account. I know, of course, that that

is only a constitutional theory. In practice, things do not work out quite like that. We can, however, make life difficult for the Government.
That can be done as well by some of the more stroppy Conservative Back-Bench Members. For example, the Government were forced to announce that there would be an inquiry into BCCI. Another example was the private notice question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. These examples show that it is possible for hon. Members on both sides of the House to put pressure on the Executive.
It is absurd for the House to shut down for about 12 weeks, especially when we know that the Government will not be shutting down for that period. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish that they would shut down permanently. We know that the announcement has gone out from Conservative central office and No. 10 Downing street that there will a summer of great political activity for Ministers. That will undoubtedly ruin any holidays that they might have arranged.
The political programme started today with the citizens charter. It is described as a White Paper, but in reality it is a plum paper. The Prime Minister put in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I." Certainly that was how the right hon. Gentleman behaved this afternoon.
I look on the document as a long confessional note, not as a White Paper. We have had about 12 years of Conservative Government and it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to tell us that a host of things will be done because of the rundown in the public services, when Conservative Governments, of whom he has been a prominent member for some time, have been active in running down those services. We are getting the flavour, however, from the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon and from all the other things that are going on. It is clear that the Government will be extremely active during the summer recess.
The House exercises no real check on the Government's actions. Surely it is important that we should exercise some control through questions and speeches and by securing statements from Ministers. When the Leader of the House replies to the debate, I hope that he will say whether he is personally in favour of a more evenly spaced legislative year, which would be appreciated by many Members on both sides of the House. When the Select Committee considers sitting hours, I hope that it will look into Sessions as well.
During the summer recess, and perhaps beyond that, there will be endless speculation about the date of the general election. We are coming towards the end of the 1987 Parliament and people are becoming restless and, at times irritated. We are at the fag end of the Parliament. There are many who are experiencing difficulty when planning. It is a debilitating process, and not only for hon. Members. In this context, I am not bothered about the convenience of hon. Members. I am more concerned about the climate of uncertainty throughout the country, which is experienced by members of the business community, those who are involved in commerce and by the public generally when it comes to taking decisions. Often their decisions will be based on which party will be in power and on the date of the general election. A climate of uncertainty is created at home and abroad, and it is about time that the practice was brought to an end.
It would be naive in the extreme for me to expect the Prime Minister to announce the date of the general election. I suspect that it will take place after Christmas. No doubt the Prime Minister does not want to run any risk of not being at the intergovernmental conference in December, and that is a legitimate position for him to take. I have made my estimate of when the general election will take place, but who knows? Only one person knows, and that is the Prime Minister. It is unsatisfactory.
We need fixed election dates. Other countries have managed their affairs effectively with fixed-date elections, and we have fixed dates for local elections and EEC elections. The principle should be extended to general elections. It would ensure that Governments of whatever colour do not create windows of opportunity by manoeuvring mini-booms in the knowledge that difficulties will arise in the following two months. If a Government know that conditions are due to worsen, there is every likelihood that they will make a rush for the polls in the hope that they will gain an electoral advantage.
The ability of a Prime Minister to decide almost alone when there will be a general election gives him or her enormous power. It is far too much power. The House should always be jealous of giving too much power to any Prime Minister, whoever he or she happens to be. Such power keeps the Opposition on the run and guessing, and perhaps that is fair enough, but it keeps members of the governing party guessing as well. Great pressure can be put on recalcitrant Government Back-Bench Members if there seems to be the threat of a rebellion and an election is hanging over them. Nothing concentrates the minds of Members of this place more wonderfully than the idea that they and their party might lose a general election. That demonstrates the enormous power of a Prime Minister, who can call an election when he decides that it is right to do so.
It is time that we moved towards fixed election dates so that we can ensure that party-political advantage is not put before the interests of the country as a whole. If my arguments curry any favour, I hope that hon. Members will support me when I introduce a ten-minute Bill in October, subject to there not being a general election in the meantime.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that there should be fixed election dates. However, I am not sure that the choice of an election date gives tremendous power to a Prime Minister. It is often a great burden because they invariably get it wrong. Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in 1970, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in February 1974, and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in 1979 are three recent examples. Prime Ministers might actually be glad to be relieved of a choice which so often turns out to be a burden. It certainly does not give them immense power because they so frequently get it wrong.
I wish to make the speech that I had hoped to make during our Army debate three weeks ago today. This will be my last opportunity to do so before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes his statement on Army restructuring, which is expected tomorrow afternoon. I support the Government's planned reductions in the armed forces in response to the

tremendous changes in eastern Europe and the fast-declining threat from the Soviet Union. The plans to reduce the strength of the Army from 156,000 to 116,000 by 19 battalions are both desirable and necessary. However those reductions must be carried out sensibly and fairly. That is my concern, and that is the basis of my speech.
The task of selecting regiments for amalgamation or disbandment was passed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Army Board, which in effect delegated the decisions to the councils of colonels of regiments at infantry division level. It would appear that, within the Prince of Wales division, the seven English regiments outvoted the two Welsh regiments, and it is believed that the colonels decided to recommend the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment. That recommendation was encouraged by the chief of the general staff, General Sir John Chapple, who by saying that regiments should not be called upon to undergo a second amalgamation in the same military generation, immediately targeted those 12 regiments that had survived earlier reductions.
I want to argue against the recommendation for the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers with the Cheshire Regiment—or, indeed, with the Royal Regiment of Wales—on four grounds. The first ground is recruitment. The Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment are the most strongly recruited regiments in the Prince of Wales division. It is those regiments that find it hardest to recruit that should be amalgamated. That is the logical action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should take.
Wales provides 8 per cent. of the Army's infantry recruits, although it comprises only 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population. In fact, it provides almost 50 per cent. more recruits than its percentage of the population warrants. I understand that the Principality produces more recruits proportionately than any other part of the United Kingdom. Wales has no difficulty in providing manpower for its three regiments. In fact, it subsidises other regiments in the Prince of Wales division that do not attract sufficient recruits on their own merits.
Cross-border amalgamation with an English regiment could have a serious impact on recruitment from Wales. The traditional territorial recruiting link would be broken. That point was made effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) during the Army debate three weeks ago, when he referred to the last major Army restructuring, in relation to the Cameronians, and the subsequent detrimental effect on recruitment from Lanarkshire. Currently, of the 150 new recruits a year to the Royal Welch, 100 come from north and mid-Wales. There is an especially strong bond between the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the county of Clwyd, where my constituency is, and the county of Gwynedd. Young men could be put off embarking on an Army career if they have to join an English regiment.
A further argument for retaining the Royal Welch as an independent regiment is its professionalism and morale, which is extremely high. Some 67 per cent. of the soldiers are serving on engagements of nine years or longer, with a further 19 per cent. committed to serve for six years. Even with the reduction from 55 to 36 battalions, the contribution of Wales to recruitment justifies the retention of all three Welsh regiments. In recruitment terms, it would not be fair to amalgamate the Royal Welch


Fusiliers, and it could seriously damage future recruitment from the Principality, especially from north and mid-Wales.
The second ground on which the Royal Welch Fusiliers should not be amalgamated is territorial fairness. I am looking quickly around the Chamber to make sure that no Scots are present—[Interruption.] I am referring to Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will remember my last speech in an Adjournment debate, when he made clear his dismay that I had forgotten his nationality.
There is a feeling that Scotland is likely to be treated more favourably than Wales, although we will not know that until tomorrow. Scotland provides 11·6 per cent. of infantry recruits, compared with Wales's 8 per cent., although Scotland's population is twice that of Wales. Scotland has nine battalions, including two battalions of the Scots Guards. I understand that the plan is to reduce the Scots Guards to one battalion and to reduce the remaining battalions by two. That would leave Scotland with six battalions, but on its recruitment record and potential, it should have only four.
I am not asking for more Scottish battalions to be disbanded or amalgamated—that would be a brave thing for me to do. However, there is a feeling that Scotland may be treated more favourably than the Principality. Under the plans envisaged, Scotland will be left with 50 per cent. more than its fair share, whereas Wales, if it loses one regiment, will be left with 26 per cent. less than its fair share.
The third ground is the economic and employment impact of the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Obviously, the amalgamation or disbandment of any regiment has a potentially serious impact on the local economy wherever the regiment is based. Up to 1,000 people, including civilian personnel, could lose their jobs in this case. The Royal Welch Fusiliers has its headquarters at Hightown barracks in Wrexham, so amalgamation or disbandment would hit an area where unemployment has increased by 35·7 per cent. in the last year. That area—like my constituency, which is adjacent to it—has suffered tremendous structural unemployment during the past few years.
I want to say how glad I am to support the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on this issue. Sometimes to our mutual embarrassment, we have seen eye to eye and campaigned together on several local issues. Whatever our political differences, I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman as a constituency Member. I have been glad to work with him and, indeed, with members of other political parties in Wales to try to preserve the Royal Welch Fusiliers as an independent regiment.
The fourth ground is historical and cultural. The Royal Welch Fusiliers is the senior regiment of Wales, with the longest and, arguably, the strongest connection with the Principality. I shall not relate its history to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as that would take rather a long time. It was raised in 1689, and in the 300 years since it has been involved in almost every British military campaign. As I said, in recruitment it has a strong connection with north and mid-Wales, and with Clwyd

and Gwynedd in particular. The Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association is the strongest regimental association of its kind in the United Kingdom, with more than 2,500 active members.
My constituency is a case in point, demonstrating the strong connection between the regiment and different parts of the Principality. It was granted the freedom of the borough of Delyn in April 1976. I was present twice in the towns of Flint and Mold in my constituency when the regiment exercised its right to march through the borough with bayonets fixed.
It is also important to remember that almost 40 per cent. of the regiment is Welsh-speaking. That proved useful when trying to outwit the Japanese in Burma and, more recently, when the regiment was stationed in Northern Ireland.
There is a strong historical, cultural and linguistic bond with Wales that should be preserved, not just for sentimental reasons but on the practical ground of recruitment.
Cross-border amalgamation with the Cheshire Regiment is viewed by many people in Wales as an insult to the Welsh people. Even my right hon and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State for Wales, has described the potential amalgamation in those terms. I have said in the House several times that the Conservative party in Wales appears too often no more than a branch of the Conservative party in England, with no distinctive identity of its own. If the Royal Welch Fusiliers are amalgamated, that unfortunate impression will be underlined and perpetuated. Like all Welsh Members, I am prepared to let the case rest on recruitment and retention in particular, because if they are the paramount criteria, the Royal Welch Fusiliers will have nothing to fear.
The campaign in and outside the House to preserve the Royal Welch Fusiliers has been an all-party one. The Welsh Conservative parliamentary group, like groups in other political parties, has worked hard to preserve the regiment. It has met my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for the Armed Forces. We have done all that we can through correspondence and meetings with Ministers to put the regiment's case.
Every such campaign has its hitches, especially when it must be organised—as this one was—at extremely short notice. I regret that we as a group were not informed some weeks ago of the lobby of the House by the Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association because, had we been, we would have attended to give our strong support to the regiment.
Last Wednesday, I was glad to receive from the mayor of the borough of Delyn a petition with no fewer than 11,500 signatures—by far the largest petition I have received in my eight years as a Member. I was glad also that I was able to arrange to receive that petition with colleagues from the three other political parties in the Principality. It emphasised, if that were necessary, that the Royal Welch Fusiliers are seen by all of us as part of the Welsh family—one symbol, among many, of the distinctive identity of the Welsh people. If Ministers ignore the logic and common sense of retaining the Royal Welch Fusiliers as an independent regiment—let alone the emotional attachment of the Welsh people to the regiment—they will o so at their peril.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) put the most novel argument I have ever heard for bilingualism. He adverted to the great advantages that the ability to speak Welsh apparently gave Welsh prisoners in the last war. That was a short-lived advantage. The Japanese have caught on to it, and the welcome Japanese residents of the Principality are learning the language. I understand, however, that they have set themselves a target of achieving full articulation with 10 per cent. less vocabulary.
Like Welsh Members from all parties, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Delyn about the Welsh regiments. As he will confirm, it is an unusual course that can attract 100 per cent. support among the parties involved in Welsh politics. Self-preservation leads me to dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Scots.
I wish to pursue the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the problems created in the brewing industry by the brewers' attitude to their tenants. Again, in this matter, hon. Members on both sides of the House supported the arguments against the brewers' actions.
To put this matter in a slightly wider context, one should understand that the brewers are responding to the fact that they have been rumbled on what was once a tax concession and is now a great tax fiddle. Duty on beer is applied early in the production process. That feature was introduced in 1880 by Gladstone. It was recognised that 6 per cent. of the beer was wasted during refinement. Throughout the intervening years, brewers enjoyed a marvellous tax gift of 6 per cent. of the amount of tax that they should have paid. This year, it amounted to about £125 million.
The National Audit Office, which conducted an investigation and reported to the Public Accounts Committee, discovered that the biggest brewers, using expensive new equipment, could reduce that 6 per cent. wastage to 3 per cent. That may not sound a lot, but we are talking about £125 million of tax concessions—the big brewers account for £100 million of that tax benefit. According to the Brewers Society, all the top brewers use the same technology. For much of this decade, the brewers have been ripping off the tax man and the British public to the tune of up to £15 million a year, because technology has overtaken the concept of the relief on the old duty given for wastage.
I come to the main subject of my speech. Although this is a constituency issue, I wish to ask colleagues to consider the way in which they would react if there were identical circumstances in their constituencies. A quango in my constituency decided to close the night casualty unit at my hospital. Despite enormous opposition from the city council, the county council, local Members, 82 per cent. of local voters—as revealed by a survey in the South Wales Evening Post—and the 30,000 people who signed a petition which I organised and presented to the Secretary of State, that quango said, "We will close the casualty unit." There is enormous anger in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, yet it is ineffective, because the quango is virtually doing what it likes.
That same detested quango, West Glamorgan health authority, closed the casualty unit in the early 1980s. For a couple of years, it consulted about changing casualty

from a major to a minor unit. Overnight, it closed the unit, without any consultation on that option. Even the Welsh Office was horrified. With the support of Ministers, we worked to thwart the authority's proposals and the unit was reopened—although only on the basis of having a minor casualty unit, operating during the day.
The health authority is now at it again. It is in the middle of a fraudulent exercise of so-called consultation before it goes ahead with a decision that it has already made. I describe that exercise as "fraudulent" because the health authority is deceiving the public and is withholding or wrongly presenting information.
The health authority said to the people of West Glamorgan, "If you let us close the night casualty unit, we will be able to carry out 400 more cataract operations a year." To pensioners and the elderly, that is clearly an important consideration, but the health authority has not explained that it will cost £333,000 to introduce the extra ophthalmic capability. The authority will save only £74,000 from closing the unit.
The health authority is telling the people of West Glamorgan, "Save £70,000 in the casualty unit and we will give you £333,000-worth of cataract operations." Everyone can see that that is nonsense. The saving about which the authority talks would provide about 80 extra operations a year.
During the past week, the health authority ran a full-page advertisement in a newspaper promoting its measure as a health gain for the community. It said that cataract operations represented a health gain compared with the casualty service. Although 1,460 people used the casualty unit last year, it will disappear shortly if the health authority has its way. The trade-off—if this is to be seen as a trade-off—is that a mere 80 cataract operations will be funded by the closure of the unit.
Of course, the health authority does not explain that the Welsh Office is establishing a cataract unit 20 miles away, at Bridgend, to deal with the backlog of cataract patients on waiting lists in south Wales.
Something else has come to my aid today; I noticed that in his statement on the citizens charter the Prime Minister said that dealing with the backlog of cataract operations was to be one of the elements in the White Paper. Naturally, we assume that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that can be done only if the resources are there, so we assume that the Government will provide resources. That is another reason why there is no need to close the casualty unit.
Furthermore, the health authority does not point out that, since it counted the number of people using the casualty unit overnight, two major departments—paediatrics and gynaecology—have been transferred from another hospital. It is absurd that, under the proposed new system, if a 999 call were made, for a spontaneous abortion, for example, the patient would have to be taken to another hospital in Morriston where there will be a casualty unit, and then brought back to Singleton, where the gynaecology department now is, and where there is now a casualty unit—but that unit is about to disappear.
The same consideration applies to children's illnesses, too. Children with major complaints will have to be taken out of Swansea and then brought back again.
It is especially galling to us in West Glamorgan that the Welsh Office recently produced a formula under which each health authority is given a percentage of the total budget available for Wales determined by the size of the


population and by need. On the Welsh Office's own admission, West Glamorgan already receives £2·2 million less than it is entitled to in the current year. We are to lose a night casualty service for the sake of saving £74,000, yet the Minister admits that the Government owe us £2·2 million for this year and will owe us the same amount next year, because that deficit will not be put right in the short term.
I said that the so-called consultation was fraudulent because the health authority had already made up its mind. That much is clear from the fact that the authority has already advertised in the British Medical Journal for a consultant to fill the ophthalmic post whose existence is supposed to be contingent on the decison to close the casualty unit.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that West Glamorgan health authority has already made up its mind. In the meantime it is sending officials to other parts of the county—to Neath, for example, where there is a casualty unit, and to Aberavon, which uses the Neath unit. The officials say to pensioners' groups that if they support the closure of Swansea casualty unit—the unit that those people do not use—the health authority will be able to give people the eye operations that they need. That is cynical and contemptible, and it is happening in the name of a quango that ignores local public opinion.
We believe that that distortion of a consultation process should be exposed for what it is. Ministers should tell West Glamorgan health authority that it is clear from all the evidence that the consultation is a sham, and that when the decision goes on appeal to the Welsh Office, as it most certainly will, Ministers will throw out the health authority's case.

Mr. David Nicholson: As a native of Cheshire, but with English parents who reside in north Wales—I shall visit them next week—I believe that I have sufficient historical knowledge of the rivalries between those two tribes to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said about the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Cheshire Regiment.
One general reason why the House should not adjourn is that both sides of the House, expecially Conservative Members, would welcome a debate on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter, produced today. Conservative Members would especially like to explore the motives underlying the churlish and sterile response of the Labour party to my right hon. Friend's statement. I welcome my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to providing decent standards in public education, public health and public transport—that commitment is an essential part of his political philosophy.
I shall discuss two aspects of that commitment—first, standards in the teaching of English. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) eloquently pursued the same subject in Friday's debate, but I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor the House will mind if I now support his case. It is a sufficiently important subject to be worthy of support by more than one hon. Member.
My attention was drawn to concern over the teaching of English a few weeks ago, on 30 June, by an article in The

Sunday Telegraph, which quoted from the vexed £20 million document produced under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science on the teaching of English language and literature. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham effectively took the document to pieces on Friday, but he did not refer to the following quotation from it:
grammar should be seen as 'a series of options from which the speaker or writer should make choices dependent on context and intention."'
It is worrying that
this study is already being used to train English teachers in state schools how to implement the national curriculum. That does not mean, of course, that all English teachers
support the "progressive" intentions of the document, but
merely that all are got at by the thought police",
as described by Nicholas Farrell, in The Sunday Telegraph. Chief among the "thought police" is
Terry Eagleton, the Marxist recently appointed Professor of English at Oxford University. He describes himself as the 'barbarian in the citadel' … At a conference two weeks ago at Ruskin College, Oxford, attended by 400 like-minded progressives and called to discuss the struggle for English"—as they call it—
He said: 'There's an enormous amount to play for and we're the only people in the arena."'
We understand that
21 of the 25 regional co-ordinators of the suppressed English teaching study are members of the … left-wing pressure group
supporting this approach.
In connection with the implementation of the citizens charter, there is considerable concern about standards in state schools. Conservative Members are committed to maintaining standards—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had his own spell seeking to raise standards and thus to fulfil our commitment.
I must commend a study known as "English, our English" published by the Centre for Policy Studies a few weeks ago. It states in its introduction:
When children leave English schools today, few are able to speak or write English correctly. Even fewer have a familiarity with the literary heritage of England and it is not hard to see why, because among those who theorise about English teaching there has developed a new orthodoxy which regards it as a conceptual error to speak of correct English and which rejects the idea of a literary heritage. And this new orthodoxy has now come to influence every aspect of English in schools.
I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement today about the introduction of outsiders to the inspection of schools. They will replace the insider HMI system because Her Majesty's inspectors have made reports that endorse and carry forward these somewhat subversive thoughts about English. Hitherto, they have said how it should be taught and what the aims of teaching should be, and the recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectors have largely reflected the tenets of the new orthodoxy.
Equality of opportunity, to which Conservative Members are committed, is facing one or two difficulties and distortions in Taunton. Because of the way in which the town and the school structures have grown, 62 per cent. of pupils in Taunton live south of the railway but only 28 per cent. of secondary school places—at Castle school—are to be found in the south. As I have learnt from recent constituency cases, that has left many families unable to have the first choice of school and it has generated dissatisfaction with the service and created difficulties for the schools in the north which have to receive pupils from disaffected families. Inevitably there


are many cross-town journeys and more children have to be transported by car who would walk or cycle if their schools were close enough to home.
For some time the education authority, the county council, has been pursuing a scheme to build a new school in the south of the town and it was envisaged that the scheme would obtain substantial support from the DES—as well as from the Church, because it involved a Church school. The announcement in April that the DES would not support the scheme caused dismay among members of the county council. The chief reason given by the DES was the size of the sum required, but that would have been apparent to the DES from the start of the project, yet it was not mentioned until late in the day. So my constituents and those in the education system in Taunton and in the county have some reason to feel aggrieved about the lateness of the DES's decision.
I have made Ministers aware of this problem and I have raised it in the House. I hope that the DES will be as supportive as possible of the efforts being made to rectify the imbalance in school provision in Taunton—for educational, social and environmental reasons.
The second matter that I want to raise has consequences for the environment. I welcome the new approach of the Secretary of State for Transport to transport of freight, and his new emphasis on the role of the railways. I welcome his recent announcement on section 8 environmental grants for environmentally sensitive roads. My right hon and learned Friend and I had an exchange on the matter on 11 July at column 1103. I commend to him and to the House a study produced some time ago by Somerset county council on the consequences of moving, within the EEC, to a 40-tonne upper limit for heavy lorries. That will have consequences for many counties. In Somerset, almost all bridges on minor roads would have to be strengthened to take the extra loads—one reason why the 40-tonne limit is not to be introduced until January 1999.
I understand that the Department of Transport is carrying out a bridge survey which it expects to take another two years to complete. The Department estimates that 10,000 bridges need to be strengthened, but we understand that it is not prepared to estimate the cost of the operation. It is estimated that in Somerset alone 400 bridges will have to be strengthened at an approximate cost of £8 million, at 1990 prices.
In my constituency the small towns of Wellington and Milverton are both outstanding heritage settlements. Five hundred HGVs will pass through Wellington every day, and 70 through Milverton.
I know that other Members want to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad that Somerset county council has produced proposals to resolve this problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke for well over 10 minutes.
Somerset county council recommends that all lorries over an agreed weight and length should be restricted to motorways and A roads, and it proposes the development of lorry parks, warehouses and trans-shipment parks at motorway exits—that will assist the trans-shipment of freight to smaller vehicles. I hope to return to this matter in the autumn on an Adjournment motion, but it merits the attention of the House today.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: We have heard many good reasons why the House should not adjourn, not least those, including the subject of education, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). I too want to discuss education this evening.
This afternoon, when the Prime Minister introduced the citizens charter, an excellent document which I trust has the full support of the whole House, he raised the question of educational standards. Earlier, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to brain-dead journalists. I shall not take up his subject or pursue his line about how journalists nearly always get matters wrong, except to say that Members and journalists also get it wrong far too often by emphasising the negative. Just for once, and in the space of three or four minutes, I want to discuss something that has gone well—

Mr. Irvine Patnick: One minute will do.

Mr. Thompson: Two or three minutes will be quite enough.
Between 1 and 9 July this year, the international physics olympiad was held in Cuba. It took place in Britain back in 1986 and it began in the eastern bloc in 1967. It is an opportunity for young people from this country to achieve in science, especially in physics. In The Times Educational Supplement of 28 June, Dr. Cyril Isenberg, secretary of the British physics olympiad, was quoted as saying:
The competitive spirit in education, despite what we hear, is not dead.
The physics olympiad is a way of ensuring that our young people can compete and achieve excellence in education.
Earlier in this debate, we heard about the importance of ensuring that education is good for all children, an idea that I support. What I want to say in no way contradicts the principle of a good state education service for all. Last year, Alexander Barnett, who attended Manchester grammar school, at which I was privileged to teach for five years, was awarded the gold medal in the international physics olympiad. Thirty-two countries took part. We did not do quite as well this year in Cuba, but K. Reavell of Bedford school won the silver medal, and we obtained four other awards. This year, a Russian student gained the top placing. I am sure that that pleased President Gorbachev, and I would have spoken to him about it if I had had the chance last week to meet him on the Terrace.
The achievements of these young people are marvellous. In this country, about 500 students from some 200 schools compete to become members of the five-strong team which will take part in the international physics olympiad. This year's British winners who will go forward to the olympiad took part in a presentation ceremony at the Royal Institution, at which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was present.
The competition generates enthusiasm for physics and science generally, and the number of A-level standard entrants to the competition increases by 30 per cent. a year. In this country, there are six times as many state schools as independent schools, but the number of entrants to the competition from independent schools is equal to the number from state schools. That supports the point made


by some hon. Members, that we must encourage excellence in our state schools more than we do, so that the number entering the competition from state schools is six times as great as the number entering from independent schools. When that happens, we shall be able to say that we have achieved what we set out to achieve.
I have raised this subject to give publicity and encourage support for real scientific and educational achievement. In the press, and perhaps even in the House, too much attention is paid to the trivial and the way-out, astrology rather than astronomy, and it is important to put good scientific achievement on the record. Parliament should hear about such achievements as well as about achievements in other spheres.
While improving overall standards, we need to encourage competition and excellence in education. I know that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, agrees. I was grateful for his support when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science and we were trying to make sure that single sciences were still taught in our schools. Therefore, I do not need to take any more time trying to persuade him of my argument. I urge the Government to support the principles of the British physics olympiad and the House to take every opportunity to support such activity and our young people who do so well.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose—

Mr. Patnick: Oh.

Mr. Haynes: The Government Whip should not sound surprised. I am entitled to contribute to the debate.
I feel as though I have not been to bed because, not many hours ago, I was speaking to the Leader of the House. He has been a fair Leader of the House, and I hope that he will be fair on many of the questions put to him in the debate.
A few weeks ago, I put a question about Cyprus to a Minister in the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and asked him to get stuck into the job. He is new to the post; he was appointed by the right hon. Lady who used to occupy No. 10, who hoped that he would do a good job, especially on the quesiton of Cyprus. Last week, we had a first-class meeting in Room 14, which was packed solid with Greek Cypriots. Many others could not get in. Turkish troops from the mainland invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the only attempt to sort out the problem has been gas-bagging. There has been no action whatever.
I was a little disappointed to hear the President of the United States say that Turkey was a good boy for the way that it helped to overcome the problems in the Gulf. That lot invaded northern Cyprus and created a big problem. Many people are missing and many of us want to know where they are. The Government are one of the guarantors of Cyprus, and they should take some action instead of sitting round a table and gas-bagging, as they do in the Chamber. We want the Government to make some concrete decisions about how to solve this problem, but they have not done very well up to now.
The 1974 invasion was allowed to happen. I accept that, at that time, Labour were in power, but this problem has

gone on for 13 years, and talking for that length of time is not good enough. We need some action to remove the Turks from the island, because the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots want to live together in peace.
The population of northern Cyprus is growing by the day. People have been flittered there from the mainland to take over the place. We have a base in southern Cyprus in the Greek Cypriot area, and if matters are left for too long, the Turks will cross the green line and decide that they want the whole island. I hope that the Leader of the House will have something to say to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and especially to the Minister of State who is responsible for that area. I hope that he will also let the Foreign Secretary know.
Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been doing a lot of talking. He has been trying to help, but he cannot make the decisions. Other people have to make them and he has to carry them out. The Leader of the House should take some action and the Government should sort out the Cyprus problem, because it has been going on for far too long.

Mr. William Powell: As always, this debate has so far raised a fascinating range of topics, to which I have listened with considerable interest. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) thought that our break to 14 October was far too long. I disagree. I think that it is far too short, and would prefer to have more time with my constituents than will be possible because of the fact that we shall return here immediately after the party conference season.
If I had longer, I should like to have developed four points, but I shall merely articulate them and allow time for other hon. Members to speak. On 22 October last year, at about 8.20 in the evening, a young constituent of mine, Miss Susan James, was travelling with a friend in a taxi in Corby. The taxi was involved in an accident, and Miss James and the driver of the taxi were killed and the passenger was very seriously injured. The driver of the taxi, who quite coincidentally was well known to me, had been driving continuously for some 16 hours. That cannot possibly be right.
In all circumstances, drivers who are conveying the public in coaches or lorries—but apparently, not in taxis—are governed by regulations setting out how long the driver is allowed to drive. This accident gave rise to issues apart from the length of time for which that driver was driving. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister for Public Transport is conducting an inquiry into the various regulations, but it is important for members of the public to be assured about all aspects of safety when they travel in taxis. That must include the hours that taxi drivers work.
I do not think that taxi drivers are, in general, working for anything like that period of time, but it cannot be right that, after this case, this lack of restriction should be allowed to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will reach a conclusion urgently. He is perfectly aware of my feelings on this matter. It is so clear that it cannot be right for taxi drivers to work continuously for 16 hours, and that it is a danger both to their passengers and other members of the public if they do, that this anomaly must be corrected as soon as possible.
The House is aware of the scandal of timeshares and the way they are sold. If I had had longer, I should have set out the evidence that comes to light almost every day. The House will agree that, in all categories of junk mail that our constituents receive, the most junk-like is that for timeshares. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to come to the House as soon as possible after we have returned with proposals to put an end to this scandal.
I have two other short points to make, both of which are rarely raised in the House. In recent years, there has been controversy over the quality of our judges. One aspect of this controversy is the retirement age. Under the Judicial Pensions Act 1959, High Court judges are allowed to retire at 75. Under Courts Acts, Crown court judges are allowed to retire at 72 and magistrates at 70. The burden that our judges, particularly our High Court judges in the Court of Appeal, carry, with the huge weight of appeals going through, is immense. I cannot help feeling that there should be serious discussions to review whether that retirement age is any longer appropriate, given the conditions in which judges have to do their work. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and my right hon. and noble Friends, will give urgent consideration to this matter.
My final point is about the payment of parish clergy of the Church of England, which is a matter of concern to the House. There have been reports that clerical stipends will be reduced in the coming year because of the financial difficulties that the Church of England is having in meeting its stretched budget. However, we should pay some attention to the costs of bishops and suffragan bishops. It is estimated that the cost of a diocesan bishop is £100,000 a year. That includes salary, staff, a home, a car and so on. For a suffragan bishop, the cost is nearly £100,000 a year.
The Crown has the task of nominating bishops to the dioceses of Wakefield, Bradford and Gloucester. I hope that nominations will be postponed for as long as is possible, perhaps even a year or two. Furthermore, there is no need for suffragan bishops in this day and age. They exist to confirm people, but confirmations are down to only half a dozen candidates—a world away from the days when Archbishop Wakefield confirmed 4,000 people at a time. The cost of sustaining suffragan bishops is immense.If some savings could be made by the Crown delaying appointments to sees and to suffragans, it is possible that money will be made available for the parish clergy, who are the people who really matter in staffing the parishes of the Church of England.

Mr. David Amess: I hope that before the House adjourns for the summer recess, we shall consider the case for hospital radio to have its own broadcasting frequency. Each year I suggest that hospital broadcasting equipment should be zero-rated for VAT. I have been disappointed on that, but I was led to believe that hospital radio would be granted its own frequency. There has been a delay of six months in setting up the pilot scheme with 10 hospitals. I hope that, through the good offices of the Leader of the House, we can chase up the Radio Authority to make sure that this experiment goes ahead and that, when we have the annual meeting of the hospital radios in my constituency later this autumn, we can celebrate being given our own frequency.
Secondly, my constituents are hard pressed with the Fenchurch Street line, as are other Essex Members of Parliament, so much so that, tomorrow evening in the House, we shall be forming the Basildon commuter group. There are continual complaints about delays, lack of communication and a tardy service. I hope that we can do something about that.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said about timeshares. About seven weeks ago, I initiated a debate on this matter to which one of the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry responded. It would appear from the literature that I continue to receive that I and my wife will be spending the whole of the summer picking up our cars, televisions and cheques for £2,000. There will be a short delay while she has a baby, but I promise the House that I shall come back with all these goodies, and perhaps we can share them out and have them as prizes at fetes.
Finally, I hope that before we adjourn for the summer, a cure can be found for hay fever, because I should like to hear about it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: As usual, the debate has covered a breathtakingly wide range of subjects. I can encapsulate what hon. Members have been asking for by saying that it all adds up to a demand for a citizens charter, but one that I fear bears no relationship to the document that was presented earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was concerned about conditions in the licensed trade and the way in which the brewers operate. He made a powerful argument for a citizens charter for tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has a great deal of specialist knowledge of the motor industry, about which he spoke. If there was a citizens charter message in his comments, it concerned the need for some respect for the desire of people to have security in the industry in which they work. There is not much of that in the Government's citizens charter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) touched on a number of subjects but specifically raised the question of the three guardsmen who were crippled in Canada. Mercifully, he was not wearing a top hat when he spoke, and his points were all the more effective for that. He also raised the most important need of a citizen—his right to vote rapidly in a general election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) touched in particular on the requirements of children with special educational needs—another subject not mentioned in the citizens charter, as far as I could discover from a brief reading of it.
I am not sure that there was anything in the citizens charter that related to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). For once, I disagreed with him. I must admit that I find the prospect of American-style four-year-cycle fixed Parliaments, when two of those years are spent conducting an election campaign, pretty horrendous. However, there are "swings and roundabouts" arguments on all those matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke powerfully about the absence of a citizens charter for the rights of NHS patients—something which the Government have long neglected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—the only Labour Member to speak about foreign affairs, although the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke about them—raised the continuing problems facing Cyprus.
One would expect many requests for citizens charter-type benefits from Labour Members. I found it intriguing that Conservative Members made continuing demands for Government regulations and controls, and rights to benefits, after 12 years of Conservative government. I will not go into them all in detail, but the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) spoke about the need for stricter regulations on the sale of educational land. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) was concerned about education, particularly nursery school provision. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) spoke about changes in planning laws and the need for greater protection there. Many of these subjects related to new rights for citizens, new Government intervention and additional Government resources.
I make no apology for concentrating on the citizens charter, which I looked at when not listening to this evening's speeches—although, like most hon. Members, I have not had much time to read it. I find it deeply ironic that the Government should introduce such a charter just when an inquiry into the BCCI scandal is taking place. One of the central issues is, of course, the failure of Government Departments even to respond to citizens' letters.
When the Government start lambasting local authorities, publicly owned bodies and privatised monopolies about the services that they provide, I think, "Physician, heal thyself." The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Transport and the Treasury—in the days when the present Prime Minister was there—failed to deal with serious queries about the way in which a bank was operating. Let us have a better response from Government Departments and a bit of ministerial accountability. Let us end this business of blaming a secretary who did not deal with a request from the public. Let us see Ministers take some responsibility for a change: that would be a welcome innovation. Although the citizens charter suggests that junior officials should name themselves, it does not mention ministerial accountability.
I think that the Leader of the House fancies himself as a bit of a number cruncher. We should be very interested to know how much the proposals in the charter will cost to implement. So far, the Government seem very vague about that. We know that they have the resources to give precise costings very rapidly; every time we issue a policy proposal, they put their civil servants to work spelling out the cost. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman some specific questions: no doubt he will get out his calculator and give me some answers. Page 10 of the citizens charter refers to "a charter for patients". One of the crucial aims is the provision of a maximum waiting time for operations. We would all say amen to that, but how much money is being committed to it?
Page 13 refers to "a charter for parents". One of the key promises is
to raise standards in education for all pupils".
That is an excellent objective, but how much will it cost? I am sure that the Leader of the House will tell us.
Page 15 talks about "a charter for tenants". We would all subscribe to the charter's desirable objectives, such as speedy repairs, but what additional resources do the Government plan to make available to local authories so that they can implement those promises?
Page 17 deals with transport, and mentions, for example, rebates for season ticket holders who do not receive a proper standard of service. It is a bit difficult for British Rail to provide such a service when it has not the money to refurbish trains and coaches. How much additional money will it be given?
Page 19 lists some laudable objectives in connection with driving tests. These are good, common sense proposals: the Government suggest driving tests in the evenings and on Saturday afternoons, for example. But what will be the cost, and who will pay?
Page 20 contains one of the richer parts of this thin document, "a charter for jobseekers". The only sort of charter that job seekers need is a charter that would provide jobs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know all about the scourge of joblessness: at any rate, Conservative Members are slowly beginning to learn about it. If last week's unemployment figures provided one grim consolation—and, my word, there were very few; I take no pleasure in saying that, because I do not wish unemployment on anyone—it was the news that the biggest rise in unemployment had taken place in the south-east. As those of us in the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland are well aware, the region has often been cushioned in the past. I hope that that brings home the true meaning of unemployment to Conservative Members.
Of course we all want people to look for jobs in
pleasant, well-designed office interiors",
but those people want jobs. There is no point in being interviewed in a pleasant, well-designed office interior if there will be no job at the end of it. What a ludicrous citizens charter this is.
Even more absurd is the section on social services, on page 21. It speaks of the need for "nationally promulgated quality standards". No one would disagree with that, but I do not know how the Government can deliver social services other than by providing local authorities with the necessary resources. We are all in favour of benchmarks and we all wish to improve standards, but the question remains the same: how much additional money will be made available?
The charter mentions the Benefits Agency, and the need for better social security provision. There is more silliness here. The charter refers to the need for "a clean office environment". No one is arguing with that, but what really counts is the level and availability of benefits.
I have heard Prime Ministers give a few pathetic answers, but I was struck by the answer that the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) today. I shall repeat the question in case the Leader of the House can do any better than his boss did. My hon. Friend asked what redress would be available under the charter to someone who, towards the end of the financial year, asked his local DSS office for a benefit payment under the social fund and was told that the social fund had run out, but that he undoubtedly deserved the benefit and qualified for it under any reasonable criterion. The Prime Minister replied that the claimant should go and see his local Member of


Parliament. What a fatuous answer! I hope that the Leader of the House can do a little better.
Page 24 of the charter deals with a subject beloved of Ministers, the police. We all know that crime has soared under the present Government, but everyone in my constituency—and, I suspect, everyone in other constituencies—would support the following laudable objective:
We will expect all police forces to set and publish target times for answering telephone calls, and arriving at the scene of incidents which require rapid reaction".
How much will police authorities be given so that they can accomplish that?
I am not surprised that the document is a peculiar plum colour. At least the Government had the sense not to make it blue; they knew that, if they did, the citizens would rip it up. Perhaps they hoped that they could usher in a Tory manifesto in the hope that some people might mistake it for a Labour manifesto. They may have thought that a few more people would read a document of this colour, because they would have more faith in a citizens charter delivered by the Labour party. The Opposition feel deeply grateful to the Prime Minister—as, I suspect, do the citizens of this country—for spelling out so eloquently the result of 12 years of Tory failure to deliver citizens' basic requirements.
We are at the end of a Session. This fag-end Government are well past their sell-by date. The only charter that the citizens of this country want is a general election.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): One difficulty of this debate is that, in order to enable as many hon. Members as possible to speak, those who sum up give themselves a very short period in which to do so. I cannot, therefore, cover all the points, but those that I fail to cover will be passed to the appropriate Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked about salmon fishing. They know that I have more than a passing interest in the subject. May I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking that I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following our previous exchange on 11 July. The Minister told me that he will be in a position to make a statement during the overspill period. One problem is that the latest figures are not available now. If, therefore, a statement were made this week, it would not include the latest figures. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that the fact that a statement will be made when the House returns after the summer recess is an advance.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred to publicans. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had set out his position in a recent letter, so I shall not waste valuable time by quoting it again. He will know, however, that my right hon. Friend said that he has already urged the brewers to keep to a minimum the number of notices to quit and to explain that the notice to quit is simply a technical step which is designed to open up negotiations on new leases,

which I understand is one of the problems. The hon. Gentleman also made it clear that he is to have a meeting with the brewers, in the light of the representations made to him.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that legislation would be introduced early in the next Session. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the position clear: legislation on the subject was enacted only recently. The Beer Orders have not yet been laid before Parliament. Therefore, it would be premature to expect new legislation in what I can assure hon. Members will be a busy and crowded fifth Session of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to housing associations in the north-west and the Housing Corporation's programme. That is set to rise significantly, from about £1·1 billion in 1990–91 to over £2 billion in 1993–94. My hon. Friend referred to the north-west's share. He will know that resources are now being distributed between regions on the basis of need, as measured by the housing needs indicator, not on the basis of past expenditure. That is a fairer way to distribute the increased resources.
Although the northern regions stand to gain from the Housing Corporation's expanding programme, their share of it may fall. However, the gain is the important point. This year, the north-east, north-west and Merseyside regions received allocations that enabled them to approve new schemes for rent and for sale worth £346 million. The Housing Corporation's projections show that next year that figure will rise to £502 million, and in the following year to £564 million.
My hon. Friend also asked about one part of the follow-up to the Ibbs report. There will be consultations with representatives of the staff who work here about any implications of the Ibbs reforms for staffing in general, which the House has welcomed. I do not want to refer to the specific case that my hon. Friend raised, but I shall write to him about it.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asked about Yugoslavia. He knows that last week the economic summit participants supported the Community's involvement in the Yugoslav crisis. We must hope that all the parties can use the breathing space provided by the ceasefire agreement on 8 July to reduce the tension and begin talks on Yugoslavia's future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that British representatives are included in the European Community monitoring that is taking place. I can assure him that the United Kingdom will play its full part. I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the longer term it is for Yugoslavia to decide its own future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) asked about a number of local cases. I appreciate the issues involved in the sale of land. My hon. Friend showed that he is well informed. I noted that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities have powers to dispose of land in whatever manner they wish, but where they are selling for less than the best price reasonably obtainable they will need the Secretary of State's consent under the Local Government Act 1972. That is reasonable. It is important that the best prices are obtained for land which has been


acquired with public funds. Planning status is a different question, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is well equipped to follow up that point.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked about Rover and its decision to lay off staff and go to a four-day week, which reflects its desire to reach productivity levels similar to those of the Japanese and also the great pressures in the car market worldwide. I fully share his disappointment about that, but I hope that he recognises the improvements that are taking place in the car industry. It is to the credit of our car industry that the volume of car exports is 45 per cent. up to the previous year. In particular, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed in the latest trade figures, out today, that, compared with May, car exports are up by some 22 per cent. Therefore, the car industry is doing extremely well by improving its exports.
That enables me to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He referred to the fact that we do not concentrate enough on the good news. No Opposition Member drew attention today to the fact that the June 1991 figures show a small current account surplus and a surplus in manufactured goods. The export performance of the car industry is particularly impressive. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out today, there is every prospect, given present trends, that we shall be running a surplus in car exports by the mid-1990s, compared with a deficit of about £6 billion in 1989. Therefore, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the performance of the car industry. Had I the time, I should have liked to say much more about it.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) again referred to the three Grenadier guardsmen. He knows that I have frequently expressed great sympathy for the three guardsmen concerned. He knows that there was a full and useful discussion of the merits of the case at the meeting on 9 July to which he referred and to which I have referred before. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are continuing to give this matter their urgent attention. A further meeting with the solicitor took place last Friday. The discussions are continuing and we must hope for a successful outcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West referred to use class orders, with which I recall having something to do myself. I understand that the purpose of the change is to enable businesses to respond to the changing patterns of consumer demand. As my hon. Friend requested, I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his particular lack of satisfaction in this case, but I shall also draw his attention to my hon. Friend's considerable tribute to him in every other respect.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised two points about the education reforms. I totally disagree with her views about them. I believe that the education reforms are excellent and that they will contribute greatly to the improvement of standards. They are much welcomed in many respects by the schools.
The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned local management of schools and actual salaries versus average salaries. There is no doubt that the greater freedom and responsibility that LMS gives schools is broadly

welcomed. It leads to better funding decisions and to a considerable improvement in morale. Pupil-led funding is an important part of the citizens charter, because it enables parents to express their views, and schools can respond to them. Listening to the hon. Lady, one would not think that resources for education had been increased. What is important is how they are deployed by schools.
Testing and the standard assessment tasks at the age of seven are important for schools, pupils and their parents. This has been the first year of national testing. I knew when we were conducting the pilot survey of 2 per cent. of schools that we could not expect to get everything right from the outset. I share the view of many schools—I still visit many schools—that there have been some problems in managing tests in the classroom and that the work load was too heavy. This summer's tests are being evaluated extensively. We acknowledge that next year the tests must be more straightforward for teachers to administer and mark. I am sure that the principle is right.
I detected a note of desperation in the voice of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at the thought that we might be rising very shortly and that that would enable Ministers to make much play over the summer. We shall not be on holiday for the whole period. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not wish to take a holiday, but quite a lot of hon. Members wish to go on holiday with their families. The party conferences take up much of September and October, and that must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked whether the timetable for the parliamentary year could be considered by the Procedure Select Committee. The answer is yes, the Committee can consider that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) commented on hay fever. I read in one of the Sunday newspapers that research suggests that hay fever is something to do with sexual excitement. I do not know whether that links with his earlier comments or whether there is any validity in the argument, but I could not resist saying it.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made much of the citizens charter. He ignored the tremendous strides that have been made in the past 12 years by contracting out and privatisation in increasing choice and in lowering costs and prices to consumers. Many other initiatives have been taken in the past 12 years. The 70 measures in the citizens charter, which the hon. Gentleman ignored, are building on that record. We shall develop that firmly over the summer.
In this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has firmly established himself on the national and international stage. His leadership during the Gulf war—

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has not been here; he can sit down.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led this country to a successful conclusion of the Gulf war and dealt with so many other issues, including the leadership of last week's successful summit. He has developed our approach to the two important European negotiations. Inflation is coming down and he is presiding over so many other successes on the economic front.
We believe that this has been a successful Parliament. The morale of Conservative Members is high. In the coming months, we shall be drawing attention to the enormous defects that have emerged in Labour's policies in the past few months.

Mr. Grocott: What about the costings?

Mr. MacGregor: It is rich of the hon. Gentleman to talk about costings when he does not cost his programmes. That is why we heard a commitment worth another £35 billion from him.
We shall be pushing all those points as well as the merits of the citizens charter and our other policies. On that basis, we are happy 10 have this adjournment, but look forward to coming back shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission of the House I will put together motions Nos. 2 to 7.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COMPANIES HOUSE

That the draft Companies House Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

PATENT OFFICE

That the draft Patent Office Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY

That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

STATISTICS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Statistics (Confidentiality) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: With permission of the House I will put together motions Nos. 8 and 9.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

OIL CRISIS MEASURES

That this House takes note of European Document No. 10445/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Energy on 8th July 1991 relating to oil crisis measures and contingency oil stocks; supports the Government's intention to ensure that member states can retain their existing stockholding arrangements; and urges it to resist the proposed increase in the Commission's powers.

POLYBROMINATED BIPHENYL ETHERS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4658/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 8th July 1991 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of polybrominated biphenyl ethers; and supports the Government's objectives of ensuring more than adequate protection for human health and the environment and a flexible and positive approach to the adoption of alternatives.—[Mr. Patnick]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. Ray Whitney: I am especially grateful to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on relations between this country and Latin America. I express the gratitude of all of us, expecially those of us on the all-party Latin America committee, for this opportunity, which is the fourth annual debate we have had on Latin America. The debate is much valued by our committee, and we believe that it is greatly valued by the Governments in Latin America.
We all recognise that the affairs of Latin America are not prominent in the affairs of the House. The exciting times in which we live draw attention to many other areas of the world. Before I go further, I welcome to our deliberations today my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). This is his first appearance in this capacity. A rounder peg has never been found in a rounder hole. The contribution that my hon. Friend has already made to relations between this country and Latin America is well marked and demonstrated, and we much applaud that.
What has happened over the past two years in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the sad developments in Yugoslavia, the developments in the middle east and the hopes that we all now have of the possible outcome of a middle eastern conference have been exciting and headline-grabbing. They have accentuated the absence of attention that we and western Europe as a whole pay to Latin America. It is important that, from time to time, the attention of the House and of Britain generally should be directed towards that important continent.
In the 1980s in Latin America, it was conventional to say that it was the lost decade. In economic terms, that is probably, and sadly, a fair description. However, it was not a lost decade in terms of democratic development. Anyone who is in the least aware of what is happening in Latin America will understand that the implant of democratic processes and democratic change has taken firm root in virtually all the countries of Latin America.
We members of the Latin America committee have been privileged to entertain a stream of Latin American parliamentarians who have come through London to exchange views and experiences with us in the working of democracy. We were especially gratified that only a week or two ago, parliamentarians from Paraguay visited us.

Only a short time ago, Paraguay might have been thought to be the last on the list. Through the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we had a happy exchange. We like to think that they took away from the House, in an all-party context, an important experience of what we can offer—the pluses and minuses of a functioning democratic system.
It is important that we should ensure that our constituents understand what is happening, including the positive things, in Latin America. I was especially struck recently by the recent report of the United Nations Development Programme on the human development index, or HDI. It is a complex attempt to measure the economic progress of a country by per capita product, also taking account of other factors such as longevity, access to education and many other complex indices. It is important to recognise how highly Latin American countries scored in that register. The report recorded that the progress in those general areas of human development in Latin America was "impressive". However, it was not universally impressive, and we all understand that, in too many Latin American countries, the gap between the very rich and the very poor is still too great. However, progress has been made.
Another area in which one should recognise the progress that has been made is in the stability of the democratic regimes. I applaud the decision taken a month ago in Santiago by the Organisation of American States. In effect, they agreed to joint action should there ever be an anti-democratic military coup or whatever against any American regime.
I believe that the wave of democracy in Latin America is strong. The concentration on freedom and on the rights of the individual has now been firmly established. In historical terms, that is a relatively new development in Latin America. We all have a duty to do what we can to ensure that that wave of democracy, which encompasses the establishment and entrenchment of human rights, is sustained. That can only be done, as we already know from experience of other countries, if the right economic conditions are developed. In that regard, the United Kingdom on its own and as a member of the European Community has a part to play.
The economic progress has been good and exciting. Inevitably, the human condition being what it is, that progress is not without its blemishes. However, just as so many other parts of the world, notably eastern Europe, have finally come to understand that socialism does not work and that the market economy produces wealth as well as freedom, that lesson has also been accepted by virtually all the Latin American countries.
In economic terms, Chile has led the field, but a raft of privatisations are also taking place in Peru, Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries. Some Opposition Members may seek to unlearn that lesson—some people are impossible to teach—but that lesson has now been learnt in Latin America, as it has been in eastern Europe.
That economic progress has also been reflected in the handling of debt. We all know that such debts were a serious overhang of the old economic conditions of Latin America. Although we are by no means out of the wood, progress has been made. The Brady approach has been accepted, and Chile, Colombia and Venezuela are now part of the international commercial market. Companies


and loans are being floated on straight commercial terms. That shows that economic health has returned to those countries and to the continent.
The economic progress has given rise to great optimism as it is felt that, with that progress, it will be possible to cement the democratic progress that has already been achieved. The best international 'estimates suggest that, next year, the rate of economic development in the continent will grow by about 3 per cent.
A further phenomenon is the regional centres of economic co-operation, such as the Andrean pact, the Mercosur and the free trade area between Mexico and the United States and Canada. I welcome those developments, but with two caveats. First, those of us who are familiar with Latin America will understand that, to some extent and depending on the region, we have been here before. In the past 20 years or more, many attempts have been made in respect of such regional groupings. Although there are still many hurdles to be overcome, I believe that this time they will succeed.
Secondly, as we mentioned to the European Community, it is important that those regional economic groupings do not become blocs that create trading wars with other blocs. We should all favour free trade, and I am optimistic that that lesson is well understood. Latin America has a strong mercantilist-protectionist tradition, but that has led to the frustration of trade and the denial of economic growth. An increasing number of people throughout the world understand that, the freer the trade, the greater the growth and prosperity for all who participate. That message is now increasingly understood in Latin America, and Europe has a duty to foster and develop that understanding. That means that our particular duty is to ensure that we get the negotiations right for the Uruguay round of GATT.
I was delighted with the outcome of the G7 meeting in London last week, thanks, to a significant extent to the important role played by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend said—this is one of the more significant points that emerged from the G7 meeting—
All the summit leaders recognised that the world cannot afford a failure in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. We committed ourselves to completing the round by the end of this year. Crucially, we committed ourselves to remain personally involved to ensure that that happens to resolve any disputes."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 663.]
That is indeed crucial. I am delighted that that development took place, because we must promote the essential partnership between the United Kingdom and western Europe on the one hand and Latin America on the other, because it will be to the advantage of us all.
The United Kingdom has a particular role to play in the European Community. Most hon. Members will recognise that there has always been a suspicion and fear that, in creating a single market in 1992, we shall create the old cliché of a fortress Europe. One of the prime contributions that the United Kingdom has made and will continue to make is to ensure that we create not a fortress Europe but a dynamic market of 320 million people, which is politically stable, makes a contribution to world peace and creates the opportunities for greater trade among all the countries of the world, not least Latin America.
I am delighted that the Community has taken yet further steps to increase our collaboration. The Asian/Latin American programme, which has recently

been granted 2·75 billion ecu, of which 1 billion ecu is to be spent in Latin America in the next five years, is a welcome development.
The United Kingdom has stepped up its technical co-operation for the next three years. That is significant because, in global terms, the per capita gross national product of Latin American countries is relatively high. The demands of Africa and countries of the Indian sub-continent have a much stronger claim to our necessarily limited aid funds. The Government's decision significantly to increase—albeit from a low level— technical co-operation funds for Latin America is to be applauded.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State needs no hectoring or cajoling from me to make him understand the importance of our developing relationship with Latin America. That has been demonstrated. The participation of a number of sectors in British society in the life of Latin America is increasing. I particularly commend the work of Canning house, which is supported by the Government. I hope that those companies that are aware of what is offered in Latin America will continue and increase their support of Canning house, which is a splendid example of how a British institution can achieve great effectiveness at a low cost.
However, there is one issue that I shall put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the hope that he will pass on to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science: the need to increase the teaching of Spanish in our schools. The issue is an old hobby horse, not just of mine, but of all of us who are enthusiastic about developing contacts with the Hispanic world in general, and we keep knocking on the door of the Department of Education and Science. However, I am not convinced that we have got very far.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science on the subject three years ago, when only 1·5 per cent. of schools in Britain offered Spanish. About 90 per cent. of the language teachers in schools taught French. There were 22,950 teachers qualified to teach French, 74 per cent. of whom taught the language, compared with only 3,200 who were qualified to teach Spanish, of whom only 46 per cent. taught Spanish. The British Government could take quick action on that. The framework of the national curriculum creates a setting in which action could be taken sharply.
Argentina, of all the countries of Latin America, is perhaps the most difficult, given the position in the Falkland Islands. During the past 12 months, relations between our two countries have developed well. The important step of establishing diplomatic relations has much more than justified itself in the development of trade, cultural and sporting contacts, and the exchange of ministerial visits.
I hope that, as we proceed, it will be possible before long to work with the Buenos Aires Government to find an outcome to the problem of the Falkland Islands that will provide a satisfactory resolution of the problem, for the islanders, Argentina and Britain. I realise as well as anyone how difficult that is, and I hope that that problem will not be put in the margin or forgotten. It needs to be solved and, given good will and statesmanship, of which the Government are capable, it is susceptible to resolution in the medium term.
I remind the House, and, I hope, the country, that we are talking of an exciting subcontinent of 422 million


people, which even two years ago had a gross domestic product of $900 billion. It is not an area that we ought to neglect, but one in which we should take an increasing and positive interest. I am certain that, under the leadership of the present Government, Britain will continue to do so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate has become almost an annual institution, which I welcome because it is important to debate a continental issue—and such occasions are rare.
I take a different view of Latin America from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—and I am sure that he would be shocked if I did anything else. The hon. Gentleman conveys the image of a subcontinent that is booming economically and where everyone is deeply in love with market forces, and that we have only to look to the future, to the day when that mystic belief in market forces will bring relief to all concerned.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not very long ago that the Workers party of Brazil lost the presidential election by a hair's breadth, after allegations of corruption against the Government, in preventing supporters of that party from voting. Lula Ignacio, the Workers party presidential candidate, is certainly not someone who is in favour of market forces, but represented the aspirations of their victims—who can be seen begging on the streets, sleeping in the slums, and selling trinkets around the airport and tourist hotels. In the forests of Latin America, and particularly in those of Brazil, the victims of market forces see their homes destroyed by the voracious appetites of the multinational mining companies. That is the lot of millions of people throughout Latin America.
There is a thirst for a share in the great prosperity that exists in Latin America, but it cannot be achieved merely by pumping in more multinational capital, when it only flows out at a faster rate. I remind Conservative Members that the Latin American people's contribution to the rest of the world represents an enormous bonus. It takes the form of the profits of multinational companies, debt repayments, and deliberately low prices for the subcontinent's primary products. The people who suffer for that are the very poor, who are represented by the Workers party of Brazil and similar organisations throughout the subcontinent.
No one denies that the past few decades have seen enormous changes. Haiti is a little outside Latin America, but I include it as part of the subcontinent for the purposes of this debate. At least the legacy of Papa Doc has been removed and there is hope for the survival of a democratically elected government in Haiti. However, if that is to happen, and if there is to be real change for the people of that country, a literacy rate of 35 per cent. does not provide much of a basis—and Haiti must be given a great deal of economic assistance. Otherwise, poverty will continue there in its awful grinding way.
Not all the changes of the recent past have been so wholesome. The United States invaded Panama and dragged away President Noriega to face trial in the American courts, but I fear that his deep knowledge of the workings of international finance, and his numerous past meetings with former CIA heads—including George Bush—make it extremely unlikely that General Noriega

will appear in televised United States court proceedings revealing the truth about the Iran-Contra scandal, the region's drug trade, and the banking links that go very deep.
It is a fact that the war continues in El Salvador. The killing continues and the lack of conclusive negotiations continues to be a problem.
The hon. Member for Wycombe used the Group of Seven conference as a sort of springboard for what he had to say towards the end of his speech. The G7 conference of last week has been hailed as a great success for the Prime Minister, but it is extremely unclear to me what the great success for him is. He obviously got through the conference extremely well. No doubt he enjoyed all the lunches and dinners, and he probably behaved well at the dining table—no one has faulted his table manners anywhere—but what was achieved at the conference for the mass of the world's population? The issue of the world's environment took up 15 minutes of the conference; 15 minutes for the most crucial issue facing humankind. Debt is a major issue for two thirds of the world's population, but the matter was merely referred to the Paris Club.
We were told that the Brady and Baker initiative is working well and that the Trinidad round would be extended. The Trinidad round sounds all very well, with some write-off of debt, but the reality is that it is not removing the debt burden or the causes of the burden. In fact, it is making the indebted countries even more deeply indebted. There is talk about debt for equity swaps, but the result is a loss of national self-esteem as countries are forced to cut public spending if they are to go along with the plans that are imposed upon them by the International Monetary Fund.
The views which were expounded by the hon. Member for Wycombe would not be especially popular in the barrios around Lima, where people are dying of cholera. They know that the World bank has blocked a scheme of water purification plants for that capital city. They would not be particularly happy to be told that market forces are their salvation and therefore they must cut public spending as they see their hospitals programme cut, the programme for medical dispensaries cut and the living conditions in the shanty towns around Lima becoming worse and worse. That is the reality of life for many people throughout the region.
In his initiative for the Americas, George Bush talks about giving economies a clean bill of health or otherwise. Presumably his main adviser is Dan Quayle, who is noted for his economic expertise. He flies around the continent telling people whether he thinks that their market forces are working adequately. I draw the attention of the House and that of Vice-President Quayle to an interesting speech that was made recently by Noam Chomsky. He said:
In the international order the South is assigned a service function. Its role is to provide raw materials, cheap labour, investment opportunities, markets. High level US planning documents emphasise that the major threat to the US is independent nationalism, Governments that respond to popular pressure for the raising of living standards and diversification of production for domestic needs.
It seems that Chomsky has quite a good understanding of what many United States policies are all about in Latin America.
All those who are likely to speak in the debate know Latin America quite well and have visited it quite frequently. There is the opportunity to talk to people who


are living in great poverty in countries such as Honduras. There are children who are under-nourished. Behind their shacks, or nearby, are enormous barbed wire fences that protect fruit plantations that are ready to export their produce. Other fences protect beef cattle that are ready for export.
The economic plan that has been put to Latin America in the name of market forces is to produce for export and to cut public spending. Those two objectives mean that many children go undernourished while good food is exported to those who perhaps do not need it so much. The balance of payments assumes a god-like mysticism over the needs of people in the regions.
The unity that developed against debt in the early 1980s resulted in desperation in the United States. There was an attempt to break up the unity of Latin American countries against debt, but that unity basically still exists. There is still a great desire to see an end to the system of indebtedness of poor countries to the richest countries. Latin America is not as badly off as Africa in comparative terms, but if someone is living in poverty in a slum near a major city with no possibility of growing his own food, and no possibility of doing anything other than hawking goods or going into the drugs trade because that provides a way out of the problem, or choosing to live in great poverty in the countryside with cash crops producing a very small return, one can understand that person's position and the power of the durgs barons in those circumstances.
We can understand why people end up producing for the drug market, and why the drugs end up with the desperate kids on the streets of New York, Paris, my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). That is the nasty, sorry circle. We must think a little more about the complexity of the situation and the need for a different approach to the needs of the very poorest people in what are potentially the richest countries in the world.
I wish to make a number of specific points. The first is Nicaragua. Before Conservative Members start cheering about the election result some time ago, when the Frente Farabundo Mari de Liberacion Nacional lost the election and the Unión Nacional Opositora Government were elected, I remind them that the FMLN brought democracy to Nicaragua. The elections would not have taken place without the FMLN. Had the policies of the United States continued, Somoza would never have been defeated. That same dictatorship, that same oligarchy, would have remained in power. The FMLN brought about enormous changes in the lives of the people of Nicaragua. It brought the hope of a universal education, a universal health service, a universal self-respect, and a respect for the people's own culture.
The UNO Government are not finding it easy to bring in the concept of free, unfettered market forces because the people of Nicaragua have other views. What I find astonishing is the pressure now being put on the UNO Government by the United States—which is reneging on its promises of aid given during the election campaign—to drop the International Court decision in favour of Nicaragua over the mining of the harbours. That is disgraceful. I hope that the Government will show their support for the International Court's decision and its belief that the United States should pay compensation for the damage that it did to Nicaragua during the terrible years of the Contra war.
In neighbouring El Salvador, where so many lives have been lost and so many families destroyed by the civil war, there is pressure not to increase military aid to the army in El Salvador, but for negotiations with the FMLN, which alone can bring peace and social justice to that country. The two go together.
On other occasions, Conservative Members have been keen to point out that Cuba is somehow a complete anachronism within the region. I have had the opportunity to visit Cuba—at my own expense, I hasten to add—and I have spoken to many Cuban people and seen much of what happens there. We should take Cuba as a whole over the past 30 years and recognise that a country that was extremely poor, extremely corrupt, and where the livelihood of most people was rather thin, to put it mildly, now has a universal education service, a universal health service and a better level of food productivity. It is no longer an American playground dominated by drugs and prostitution. it is a place of which many Cuban people are now extremely proud. The fact that its relationship with the USSR has changed considerably suggests that there should be greater trade and trade preferences between the EEC and Cuba. We should not continue to be part of what is, in effect, a United States embargo against Cuba, which has been in place for the past 30 years.
Chile has known the horrors of a fascist dictatorship since 1973, when Pinochet came to power and murdered Salvador Allende and many thousands of other people. The removal of Pinochet as president was achieved by a mixture of international pressure and the demands of people on the streets of Chile. Many died in prison and many are still missing because of the activities of the Pinochet regime.
There have been enormous changes. Many hon. Members who are present for this debate were in Chile when the Government changed in March last year. We saw the limits of the power of the new Government and the new presidency. We saw the determination of the Ministry of Justice and others to free political prisoners. I hope that, if nothing else, this message will go out from the debate: we do not want political prisoners in Chile and we want full democracy restored there.
There is more to be done. Pinochet still retains enormous power. It is a great shame that this country allowed him to buy arms from British Aerospace. If ever anything lowered this country's esteem in the eyes of the world, it was when we allowed the butcher of Santiago, who used British planes to murder Salvador Allende, to come back into this country to buy more arms. That man should be shunned throughout the world and admitted nowhere because of all that he has done.
In essence, the continent faces issues involving justice, liberty and the livelihood, of poor and ordinary people. Some issues, particularly the environment, span the continent. Those who promote market force economics should remember that, in the long run, those forces mean the destruction of forests, savanna grassland and the environment. Dr. Luzenberg, who has been appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency in Brazil, has made enormous efforts, but the Brazilian rain forest is being destroyed at a terrifying rate—12 million hectares on the continent have been destroyed this year, the majority of it in Brazil. There must be stronger policies to defend the rain forests and to use them as a renewable, recyclable resource, rather than destroying them rapaciously.
This is an important debate. I look forward to the British Government taking a view that takes more account of the poor of the continent than of the mystic economics of market forces, which the Government seem to believe offer the solution to problems everywhere in the world. If they are such a solution, why are so many people starving or sleeping on the streets?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to be able to call the Back Benchers who are rising. If they speak for 10 minutes each, they will both be able to speak in the debate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on leading this important debate. He did so as chairman of our British-Latin American parliamentary group, which does so much to develop relationships between the Parliaments of the new democracies of Latin America and our Parliament.
The debate is relevant to the United Kingdom as a major trading nation. The House should never overlook the size of Latin America. Latin America's gross domestic product is more than twice that of Africa—it is larger than that of Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia combined. In Latin America, the two largest economies—Brazil and Mexico—together eclipse those of east Europe, in which the House takes such a close interest.
Latin America is a vital area of opportunity for Britain. It has a free enterprise economic tradition, management expertise and an economic infrastructure to go with it. In common with us, it has a European cultural and linguistic heritage and a historical and sentimental reservoir of good will and friendship towards this country.
We should never forget that Britain was the midwife of Latin American independence. In the debate on the Address on 12 December 1826, our Foreign Secretary, George Canning, said that he had
called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the old.
Illustrious Britons fought alongside the freedom fighters in the war of independence in Latin America. Admiral Lord Cochrane played a vital part in the independence of Brazil, Chile and Peru, and O'Higgins became the first President of Chile. A British legion of veterans of the peninsular wars made up the backbone of Simon Bolivar's liberating armies in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. For many years we have been closely involved in the development of that part of the world.
I venture to add another, contemporary advantage: the Minister of State responsible for United Kingdom relations with Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), speaks fluent idiomatic Spanish, has a good knowledge of Latin America and appreciates the region's importance. The combination of his responsibilities for Latin America and for the European Community has an added advantage for us, because perhaps the most vital issue before us this year is the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and

trade. That will be vital for Latin America's economic revival, and the European Community will play a pivotal role in the outcome of those negotiations.
Many Latin Americans worry about the development of the European Community and its common agricultural policy, and many have expressed their concern that a new protectionist wall may be erected around the Community to create fortress Europe. We should be reassured by the emphatic and clear statement by my hon. Friend the Minister to the conference on Latin America in the City on 10 May:
The Community has repeatedly made clear that there will be no 'Fortress Europe'.
The single European market was a British initiative based on our belief in free trade and in the dismantling of barriers. I wish my hon. Friends on the Front Bench well in continuing to press our European partners for the widest possible access for all—especially the Latin American countries—to that huge market of some 320 million people.
There will therefore be no fortress Europe, but Europe remains an obstacle to the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round. The Community must put its agricultural reforms into order and then into effect. But Europe is not alone—Japan's rice farmers and the United States farm lobby also represent massive obstacles. Despite the undertakings given at last week's G7 summit in London, the prospects for a GATT settlement do not look rosy.
If we fail, the fear is that that would let loose the forces of worldwide protectionism and GATT, which settles disputes between its members, would lose influence, and free trade would gradually give way to protected blocs. We can already see that developing in Latin America. President Bush is developing his "Enterprise for the Americas", taking in Canada and Mexico. The Caribbean Latin American states will be tempted to apply. In the south of the continent, the southern cone countries are developing Mercosul, a market consisting of Brazil—the industrial giant—Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. The Andean pact is developing along the same lines. Those arrangements reflect a commitment to international co-operation, but they could become a base for protectionism with high barriers around each bloc. The perils for British trade are clear. We have a challenge to fight for worldwide free trade.
The 1980s were the decade of democracy in Latin America. Peru, Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil all put their military dictatorships behind them. Chile and Nicaragua, from opposite poles, followed suit. All the Latin American republics, with the notable exception of Cuba, have returned to democracy. That is a regional example of worldwide significance.
Colombia, despite the onslaught of political terrorism and powerful drug barons, has preserved and indeed strengthened its democracy. I pay tribute for that achievement to the courage and determination of former President Barco—now the Colombian ambassador in London. In a speech last week in London, he called the 1980s the decade of democratic renewal and the 1990s the decade of economic renewal.
That renewal is already under way. Increasingly, the problems of debt are being coped with, and debtworthiness is returning to an increasing number of Latin American countries. Last year, private companies in Venezuela and Mexico were securing loans in the


Euro-bond market, Colombia has completed its fourth refinancing, and Chile has obtained the first fully voluntary unsecured bank loan to a Latin American country.
All those factors point to massive opportunities for British business. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend about the steps being taken to assist British business men to grasp these opportunities. I also echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that my hon. Friend should encourage the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science to widen the teaching of Spanish and Portuguese in our schools. Conversely, I hope that my hon. Friend will give even greater emphasis to the work of the British Council and to its offshoot, Cultura Inglesa, in Latin America, in its efforts to teach good "English" English to the future leaders of the region.
Over the past 10 years our relations with Argentina have been severely strained as a result of the south Atlantic crisis in 1982 We should record our high regard for President Menem's political courage in putting our disagreement over the Falklands to one side in order to re-establish the long-standing warm relationship between our two countries. The rapid growth in bilateral trade and in exchanges of many types is testimony to the success of that approach. Credit is due not least to the two ambassadors concerned.
Latin America is again on the move. I hope that this debate will ensure that Britain sees that movement, and that this country will again play a major role in the progress of that region.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) for introducing this important debate and for his experience and knowledge of Latin America, born of his time in Government service in Buenos Aires and then of his parliamentary endeavours on behalf of Anglo-American relations through the British-Latin American parliamentary group, of which he is chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has also made a notable contribution based on personal experience and his work as secretary of the group.
Parliament is fortunate in having in another place my noble Friend Viscount Montgomery, president of Canning house, who also has great personal experience of south America and who introduced an important debate on it in another place on 19 December last year.
I wish to add my special appreciation of the recent visit by the Paraguayan delegation. It was well organised and the delegation members enjoyed it and learned a great deal. We benefited a great deal from it, too. We hope to deepen the burgeoning relationship with the parliamentarians of Paraguay. The Costa Rican deputies who came here a few days ago also enjoyed a worthwhile visit.
We look forward to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Santiago de Chile in early October. Those who go will be extremely fortunate and I am sure that members of the delegation on their return will understand, if they did not fully appreciate it before, the great importance of Anglo-Chilean relations and of British parliamentarians contributing to the development of good understanding between the United Kingdom and Latin America. Our British-Chilean group of which I have the

honour to be chairman, has more than 20 members already; when the delegation returns, we hope to have a few more.
Interest in Chile was heightened by the successful official visit to the United Kingdom by President Patricio Aylwin and his ministerial team. Such official Head of State visits from Latin American countries should be encouraged by the Government. I know that the Minister of State does good work in that regard, but he needs back-up and encouragement from all Her Majesty's Ministers. If it is possible to organise them in the near future, I look forward to visits from the Venezuelan, Uruguayan and perhaps also the Costa Rican Heads of State, because the comprehensive programmes organised for such official visits are extremely useful to incoming heads of state.
The United Kingdom has not only an historic interest in south America and good relations with Latin America as a whole, but an interest of strategic importance which should not be neglected. The Falkland Islands and their dependencies are of strategic interest to us and are symptomatic of the way in which we have always developed our relationship with Latin America—through sea power and commerce. We must not neglect that maritime dimension. That is why our strategic interest in the Falklands and their dependencies and in Antarctica is fully compatible with our interests in Latin America as a whole.
The Government's support for free trade through a more liberal policy, which we hope will emerge from the Uruguay round, deserves to be backed. I know that the Government will back it and I hope that they can persuade the rest of the European Community to do the same. In terms of the Community, it would be a mistake for the United Kingdom to look to the two Iberian peninsula countries, Spain and Portugal, almost alone to develop relationships with Latin America. It is necessary for their historic interests, balanced by ours, to be carried forward into the next decade. That is why it is important for every assistance to be given to British trade and investment in south America.
Chile is newly democratised, as it was bound to be, and everyone takes pleasure from that. It now has a strong and diversified economy which it did not have during the Allende years. There are great opportunities for investment in Chile's manufacturing sector and not just in the more traditional sectors of mining, communications and agriculture.
I hope that those who are timorous will take heart from the achievements of the Chilean economy. Those who wish to test the waters of south America could make their first tentative or trial investments in Chile and could do so with confidence. The Government must effectively support our business men and our strategic aims to maintain a fruitful relationship with Latin America as a whole. That is difficult to do if, at the same time, the Government are reducing our diplomatic presence and cutting posts in our embassies. Too many posts in south America have been cut to the bone and some south American countries do not have a fully manned British post. That is also true of central America. I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will be able to persuade other members of the Government of the importance of maintaining a good British diplomatic presence throughout Latin America.
While there are good grounds for optimism, the House and the British people must be alerted to persisting risks, some of which are extremely grave. I emphasise the risks of terrorism, insurgency and guerrilla warfare, which put in jeopardy the economies and the whole way of life of some south American countries. The insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador are like grumbling appendices. Insurgency in Colombia is, of course, strongly linked to certain aspects of the drug trade, but there are also ideological dimensions.
For the past 11 years the Sendero Luminoso insurgency in Peru has put at risk the state itself, and we should not underestimate the dangers there. A report in The Independent of 28 June states:
A rocket-propelled grenade smashed into Peru's economy ministry. A car bomb killed a civilian and wounded six marines. A letter bomb blew off the head of a politician. A yacht was dynamited and a naval base attacked. A factory manager, an army officer, a student activist and a trade union leader were assassinated. Peasants were massacred. Scores of rebels and troops died in ambushes. Three men were killed by police in anti-rebel sweeps around Lima. Guerrilla strike decrees paralysed many towns.
Last week's political violence, in which at least 60 people died, was the climax of a two-month offensive by the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrillas.
That is the sort of risk that threatens Latin America. The Latin American people deserve our support. Their parliamentarians deserve the closest possible liaison with us. I am sure that they will get it. I am pleased that Her Majesty's Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, are taking an increasing interest in this region.

10 pm

Mr. George Foulkes: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who requested, and then succeeded in getting, this debate. We both participated in an historic debate on South America one Saturday in early April 1982, a debate that neither of us will ever forget. I agree with his description of the Minister as a round peg in a round hole. The hon. Gentleman sounded surprised that the Government had managed to do that. That does not mean to say that I agree with all the Minister's analyses of the situation in Latin America, but it is helpful to have someone who understands the problems.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe that one of the problems is getting attention for this subject in the House. That can be shown by the lack of attendance not just today but on other occasions. Paradoxically, as greater peace and democracy are established in Latin America, and as stories slip out of the headlines, it becomes even more difficult to get attention for this important continent, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) so rightly said.
I can understand why many of the ambassadors and representatives at Latin American embassies become frustrated as they try to draw attention to the problems and needs of their area. That is particularly so when winning democracy and peace, as they have in so many countries, and establishing trade and economic reform are only the start of the task, as they so rightly say.
There has been relatively little coverage of the Guadalajara summit in the press in Britain and western Europe, but it was one of the most significant events in

Latin America in recent years. It was perhaps more significant and constructive than the media circus of the G7, which took place in London at about the same time. This historic two-day summit, attended by 23 heads of state, focused on the integration of Latin America. As the hon. Member for Gravesham said, the catalyst was principally the integration of Europe in 1992, together with free trade area talks in North America. Both have aroused great concern about trading and co-operation.
The final declaration of the Guadalajara summit was both constructive and notable. It emphasised the importance of human rights, something that is still a problem throughout the continent. It called for a united war against drugs. We have heard little from Conservative Members about that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised the subject. The important problem of the war against drugs is preoccupying many of our friends in Latin America.
Another important factor was the establishment of the fund for indigenous people—the forgotten people. Christopher Columbus was supposed to have discovered the new world, but it was there a long time before the Europeans arrived, and many of the indigenous people have been persecuted by those who came from the old world. It is right that this fund has been established.
The Ibero-American chamber of commerce was set up. A great deal of progress on the economic front was emphasised. It is ironic that, at the same time that the United Kingdom Government are neglecting our Commonwealth, notably in the Caribbean with its exports of sugar and bananas, as my hon. Friends have said, Spain sees the benefits of establishing a good relationship, along similar lines, with Latin America. It has pledged $7 billion of credit and $7 billion for investment in Latin America. It sees the advantages of co-operating with its former colonies.
I want to concentrate on the development of democracy in Latin America. As Carlos Menem said at the summit:
What is essential at this very moment is democracy—for which all Latin Americans have suffered.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned Paraguay. It is significant that the democratic revolution has extended that far. Notably, the mayoral elections in Ascuncion resulted in the election of an independent candidate. That shows that the power of the ruling party is loosening as democracy develops. I, too, was pleased to welcome the parliamentary delegation from Paraguay.
In Mexico, on 18 August, an interesting test will take place: we shall see whether the Permanent Revolutionary party—that name always strikes me as a contradiction in terms—has introduced real democracy. It is often forgotten, especially in the United States, that until now, the Opposition have not accepted that real democacy has existed in Mexico.
Let me express the hope, especially to Conservative Members, that the conditions in Cuba will soon allow a move towards pluralism. I strongly deplore the continuing confrontational attitude of the United States, which is hindering such a development.
The hon. Member for Gravesham and I have visited Colombia. I am sure that he agrees that its new constitution deserves to succeed. For far too long, the drug barons have blackmailed and bribed their way to power;


many brave people have stood out against that, especially in the judicial system. President Gaviria's bold move must receive our full support.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foulkes: No; time is short.
Above all, I want to mention Chile, which has experienced a wonderful transition to democracy under President Aylwin. I had the privilege and joy of witnessing that transition at both the plebiscite and the presidential and congressional elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, it is marred only by General Pinochet's continuing status as head of the army. The affront of the general's visit was alleviated only by the fact that it had to be short and clandestine, because he was so manifestly unwelcome even to his hosts, British Aerospace.
Already, Chilean politicians are positioning themselves for the next elections in 1992. What could be a better illustration of the fact that democracy is now well established in that country? Our relations with Chile are improving in a number of areas, especially trade. We feel very strongly, however, that the arms trade is the least appropriate area for development. There are many other ways in which we can improve bilateral relations. I pay tribute to the important part played by Ambassador Cerman Riesco in improving relations between our two countries.
Following the aberration of the Falklands war, diplomatic relations with Argentina are now fully restored. Visas are no longer required and the traditionally, historically good bilateral links between our countries have been re-established. Ambassador Camporo has played a distinguished part in that process. Argentina is now in its second term of elected government, and, although—like us—it is not without its economic problems, there are signs that democracy is firmly established there.
It would be a great pity if unilateral action by Britain on the draft legislation on oil exploration submitted by the Falklands Islands Council to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office disrupted this process. Any proper attempt to exploit Falklands offshore oil will require great co-operation with Argentina in terms of surveying and drilling operations. Multinational oil companies are unlikely to want to invest billions of pounds in disputed waters, especially with the horrendous weather conditions there. I urge the Government to go slowly and warily, and to remember British interests as well as the legitimate interests of the Falkland Islanders.
Further progress towards democracy in central America depends to a great extent on the successful outcome of the peace talks in Guatemala and El Salvador. My recent discussions lead me to believe that in El Salvador there are now real hopes for peace. I have been impressed by the sincerity of some of those on both sides in the talks that I have had with the Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional and the El Salvador Justice Minister, who made the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) look like a real right-winger. I think that the Justice Minister was pleased to be seen to be moderate compared with the hon. Gentleman.
Although there are some who clearly have a vested interest in the continuation of the conflict, I think that there is now real hope for progress. It is, however,

regrettable that President Bush has overriden the congressional freeze on military aid to El Salvador. I want to repeat and underline the urgency of the successful prosecution of the killers of the six Jesuits. We provided Scotland Yard help in that investigation. We should urge the American embassy to obtain testimony from the 10 American citizens. Their testimony is vital if the killers are to be brought to justice.
After the second set of democratic elections in Nicaragua, which I also had the privilege of observing last February, we in Britain hear much less now about that persecuted country. It still needs a great amount of assistance if it is to recover not just from the earthquake damage of so long ago, let alone the ravages of the American-sponsored aggression.
The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister came here seeking assistance. I told him that I wanted Britain and Europe to help Nicaragua's recovery in every possible way but that he should also get off his knees and remind the American Government in no uncertain terms that they have still to comply with the judgment of the International Court in The Hague and pay the $17 billion reparation for the damage inflicted.
Mrs. Chamorro may not have fulfilled the American ambitions. She may not have become the puppet that the Americans would have liked, but she deserves the support of all of us in her policy of conciliation—conciliation pursued, despite the reactionary forces within her own Administration. The Sandinistas also deserve our support and encouragement in their transition from a revolutionary party—essential in the 1970s to get rid of the dictator—to a modern democratic party of the 1990s, towards which they showed they were moving at their recent congress in Managua.
I have two other points to put to the Minister. If he cannot reply to them now, I hope that he will say that he will do so in correspondence. The first point relates to HMS Endurance, which has been raised persistently in another place by Lord Shackleton. When the Minister of State was in the Falkland Islands he gave a pledge—not to the council, as I mistakenly put in a question to him, of which he took advantage by giving a clever reply—but, I gather, to a public meeting in Port Stanley, that HMS Endurance would remain. That assurance is important for the Falkland Islands and also for Antarctica. I hope that he will repeat tonight the assurance that, if HMS Endurance is not serviceable, a replacement for it will be found. It is important to the whole of the south Atlantic.
In the discussions on the defence budget, now taking place, the Government must maintain their commitment to the garrison in Belize, which is still performing a useful role. As long as it is required by the Government of Belize, the garrison should remain there. If the Minister cannot give us that assurance tonight, I hope that he will do so on another occasion.
I should like to mention many other matters about this important continent, but time prevents me from doing so. I want to give the Minister adequate time to reply to the important points that have been made.
Democracy has been achieved in almost all Latin American countries. The lives of ordinary people were lost fighting against dictatorships, some of which were supported from time to time by some Conservative Members. Those achievements should not result in increased poverty and increased unemployment because of unfettered market forces. Like us, they need a balance of


economic and social planning and a free market tempered by social concern. That will give hope to the people of Latin America. That is what Labour will bring them when we form the Government after the next election.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on initiating the debate. I pay tribute to his work not only as a diplomat in Latin America but as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is one of my more distinguished predecessors. He and his parliamentary committee, many of whose members are in the Chamber, do much not only to draw the House's attention to Latin America but in the important work that they, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and others do in travelling to Latin America. Many of them supervised elections and now receive an increasing number of parliamentary delegations from many Latin American countries.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe in highlighting the importance of the teaching of Spanish. As he and others will know, Spanish is the second most widely spoken language in the free world. Three or four years ago, the teaching of Spanish in the United Kingdom was in serious danger. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, however, we have begun to turn that around. Next year, Bushey Hall school, an important school in my constituency, will begin to teach Spanish, which is being well received by people in the area. I hope that that will be repeated throughout the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned not only our history in Latin America, but the importance of our cultural affinity. It is extraordinary that, for 10 or 15 years, a continent which produced writers of the calibre of Octavio Paz, Garcia Marquez and Vargas Llosa should have pretended to be part of the third world. Essentially, hon. Members have welcomed the way in which democracy and market economics have returned to Latin American countries and brought them back into play.
I hope to be able to answer most of the points that have been made by hon. Members, but I apologise if I do not cover them all. I shall write to hon. Members about the points that I do not answer.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a sort of parliamentary Sandinista. He seems to support almost any lost cause. I shall not answer all his points, but he mentioned General Pinochet's visit to this country. I remind him that no Minister in this Government fawned on General Pinochet in the way that Ministers in the previous Labour Government fawned on the dictator Ceausescu. Nor did we advise Her Majesty the Queen, as that Government did, to pin a medal on his breast.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley takes a considerable interest in Latin America and has attended many of the elections. He cannot resist the odd swipe at the United States of America or joining the hon. Member for Islington, North in supporting the Sandinistas. In the course of this year, the Government

have authorised the Commonwealth development corporation to open up shop in Nicaragua, and it is enormously excited by and interested in the prospects there. It is giving the kind of aid that Nicaragua wants, by helping business men to set up businesses and to create jobs in the economy. I only wish that the Sandinista party would give Mrs. Chamorro's Government the support that we in the House feel that it should have.
I now pick up points made by all my hon. Friends. The political and economic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe, which we all welcome so much, have in many ways drawn attention away from the hugely important revolution and transformation that have taken place in Latin America. All my hon. Friends have referred to that. One by one, authoritarian regimes have given way to constitutionally elected Governments. Concern for the rule of law, respect for human rights and participatory political structures has now become a common feature across Latin America.
Only Cuba holds out against the tide. I am happy to pay tribute to the steps made in education and in health in Cuba. If a country has been receiving $5 billion of annual aid from the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that it should have made progress in one or two areas. Even Mussolini managed to get the trains to run on time in Italy. It does not alter the fact that a substantial number of Cubans, intellectuals and others, have had to flee that country, a substantial number of people remain imprisoned there and the country's leader continues to deny his people the opportunity of free elections and open democracy, which we believe hold out hope for the whole of Latin America.
Of course the problems of poverty to which the hon. Member for Islington, North referred exist, as do the environmental problems; but if one looks to eastern Europe and to the regimes with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends travelled along for so many years, one can see what the failure of socialism can do not only to the morale of the people and in creating real poverty, but also in destroying the environment.
Conservative Members and many Opposition Members believe that it is the combination of freedom provided by liberal democracy together with market economics that will deal with the cardboard cities and with the appalling poverty—

Mr. Foulkes: It has not done so far.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman also follows Latin America closely. He will be aware that it is only very recently that we have been able to say that the whole of Latin America is now under democratic rule and that all the countries there are following market economic policies. The problems of that continent have been built up over many decades of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes which often pursued economic policies that no Conservative Member would wish to support.
One of the latest examples of the commitment to real democratic practice is Colombia. A number of my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, referred to that. A new constitution broadening the democratic process was endorsed earlier this month. We applaud the courageous efforts of President Gaviria in that respect. I am confident that the change will make a significant contribution to representative Government in that country.
In parallel with the trend towards greater democracy, the newly elected Governments are increasingly adopting more pragmatic economic policies to reduce the role of the state, to lower tariffs and to give more scope to market forces, including foreign investment. We should recognise that the scale of the adjustments required by societies with limited social infrastructure, which are still burdened with debt, calls for a great deal of courage, commitment and ingenuity. I will say a word about debt later.
Nowhere is the political transformation more marked than in central America. The region is now barely recognisable to anyone who had dealings with it 10 or even five years ago. The presidents of the central American states from Guatemala to Costa Rica recently held their latest summit meeting, with Panama taking part for the first time as a full member. When their predecessors met in 1986, central America was a region synomomous with civil war, east-west rivalry and political repression. The only feasible objective of regional co-ordination seemed to be damage limitation. Yet now peace is consolidated in Nicaragua and. I share hon. Members' optimism about the prospects in El Salvador. Peace negotiations are well in train in Guatemala under the wise guidance of President Serrano.
The Central American focus has shifted towards more forward-looking if less eye-catching themes of economic integration and trade liberalisation. Britain and its EC partners can claim a modest share of the credit for those improvements in central America. The San José dialogue, begun in 1984, provides a forum for both political and economic co-operation between the EC and central American states. The seventh San José conference, which I attended last March in Managua, agreed on EC involvement in regional programmes to promote human rights. Where abuses occur, whether in central or south America, we naturally have no hesitation in condemning them. But now we are starting to go beyond condemnation, by helping to create the conditions that should prevent human rights violations in the first place.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the Jesuit murders and to the sterling work done by Scotland Yard on that matter, which was much appreciated by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe referred to the increases that we have managed to find in our aid programme for the next three years. It is a rolling three-year programme. I must emphasise that those increases do not represent new money. They are a deliberate decision taken by the Government to support the efforts for good government in Latin America.
To put it bluntly, those moneys are taken away from other parts of the world whose efforts in that respect we do not believe come up to the mark. It is important to stress that the Government have deliberately moved to support good government in Latin America. Many of the programmes that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has set up through the Overseas Development Agency are deliberately focused on attempting to work with our friends in Latin America to reinforce systems of justice and the very backbone of a liberal and democratic society.
Our condemnation of human rights abuses is now tempered with the knowledge that we are dealing with democratic societies whose leaders condemn those abuses as strongly as we do. We must bear in mind the fact that

those countries often do not have the institutions to enable them to attack those problems in the way that they would wish. We must help them to reinforce those institutions.
As we approach the 500th anniversary of Columbus's landfall in the new world, it is appropriate that the EC's economic support for and co-operation with Latin America continues to increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe also referred to that.
I recognise that the debt burden still lies heavily on many Latin American countries. Most Latin American debtors are in the middle income category, and owe their debt largely to commercial banks. While arrangements for dealing with this debt must be a matter for banks and debtors to negotiate between them, Her Majesty's Government welcome the increasing willingness of banks to include a measure of debt reduction in the agreements they reach with debtor countries under the Brady plan.
A century ago, this country enjoyed a pre-eminent position in Latin America, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. Over the years, that situation changed with the arrival of more nationalist, authoritarian regimes which were intent on putting up barriers. Britain, for its part, was simultaneously defining its own new, less expansive role in the world.
It is particularly felicitous that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, who is a staunch defender of market economics in this House and in the rest of the country, should lead this debate and carry the banner of free trade between Britain and Latin America on which our so successful relationship was based more than 100 years ago. I am absolutely convinced that the way forward for Britain in its relationship with Latin America is based upon free trade.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has said that I am unduly optimistic in hoping that the Minister will deal with one or two of the points that I have raised. Could he deal in particular with the issue of HMS Endurance? He gave a specific assurance on that when he visited the Falklands. My noble Friend Lord Shackleton has also raised the issue elsewhere. Could the Minister try to deal at least with that point?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member may recall—I am sure that he will have been in his place at the time—that I answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) on that very matter. The position on the Endurance remains exactly as stated —it is scheduled for replacement in about 1996. As for the hon. Gentleman's other question, there are no plans to reduce the garrison at present.
It is particularly significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe should be leading the debate because the prospects for Latin America and our relationship with it depend so much on trade. All my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have underlined the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in extracting from each leader of the G7 a personal commitment to ensure that the GATT round reaches a successful conclusion this year. All hon. Members who visit Latin America will know that no issue matters more to the countries of Latin America than the ability to sell their products, particularly agricultural products, in this important market.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister accept that there must be an increase in the basic commodity prices paid to most Latin American producers if the drug war is to be defeated and real poverty eliminated?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, of course I accept that. That is why the GATT round is so important to Latin America. Many of its food products would be enormously well received by British housewives, who currently pay approximately £16 per week over the odds for their food. The ability for Latin America to send its products into the European market is extremely important.
The Government are giving political support and recognition to the progress that has been made. We have significantly increased the funding available for aid, co-operation and good government in the region. High-level contacts between this country and Latin America are becoming more frequent. The visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Brazil and the visit of President Aylwin of Chile to this country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred, are just two recent examples.
It is especially gratifying that so much progress has been made in little more than a year in re-establishing our traditional links with Argentina. In many ways, Argentina represents the new mood in Latin America. The isolation of the past 20 or 30 years and the pretended third worldism were dramatically brought to an end when President

Menem took the courageous decision to join the international coalition in the Gulf by sending two Agentine naval vessels. He is to be congratulated on that decision, which may symbolically have underlined Latin America's desire to join the mainstream of world politics again—and how very welcome they are. Argentina is pursuing courageous economic policies, too.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about prospecting for oil in the Falklands. On that subject, as when we were discussing the fishing round in Argentina, we intend to ensure that the Argentine Government are not faced with any surprises.
The wind of change that is sweeping through Latin America has brought with it a renewed urgency for the process of regional economic integration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe touched on that subject and I share his optimism that groupings which are now coming together will succeed. Those groupings may finally realise Bolivar's dream of a united Latin America. In that process, the continent of Latin America can rest assured that Britain will use every effort available to us to support its democratic processes and build up our trading relationships with the continent. We shall bear in mind the fact that Latin America did better 100 years ago when it had an open trading relationship with Europe and with Britain in particular, and we shall use every effort to recover that and to support Latin America in its efforts to sustain its democracy.

Orders of the Day — Cambodia

Mr. Bernie Grant: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss a contentious subject, which has not been debated in the House for a considerable period.
There can be few countries in the world which have suffered as much as Cambodia in the past 20 years. The Labour party has repeatedly called for a reversal of British policy towards that country, but to no avail. It is to our great shame, 11 years after the Khmer Rouge's devastation of Cambodia ended, that the west has continued to punish one of the poorest countries in the world by denying it both bilateral and multilateral aid. Only after repeated pressure from the Opposition has a small amount of aid been channeled to Cambodia through non-governmental organisations.
The Khmer Rouge was driven from Cambodia in 1979 by the Vietnamese after the Khmer Rouge had murdered up to 1 million of Cambodia's people. Since then, the military factions opposing the Cambodian Government have, at various times, been given United Nations recognition, supplied with sophisticated weapons, food and even military training. At least 20,000 people are said to have had limbs amputated as a result of mines set by the Khmer Rouge inside Cambodia. Thousands of others have been killed.
Over the years, the British Government have repeatedly denied supplying military training to any of the factions fighting the Cambodian Government. Many questions have been tabled by hon. Members in an attempt to get at the truth, and hundreds of letters from constituents have been passed to Ministers for answer. Now, after years of denial, Her Majesty's Government have finally admitted, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 25 June this year:
From 1983 until 1989 Her Majesty's Government provided training to the armed forces of the Cambodian non-communist resistance, that is the Khmer People's National Liberation armed forces and the Armée Nationale Sihanoukienne.
They said:
There has never been and will never be any British assistance or support, military or otherwise, for the Khmer Rouge. Since 1989 Her Majesty's Government have not been involved in any way in training, equipping or supplying the forces of any of the Cambodian parties. In accordance with normal practice no further details about this training or any information about the nature of this training will be given." —[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 454.]
We hope that tonight the Minister will give further information in answer to a number of questions from my hon. Friends and me. If the Minister is not prepared to give that information, he should say why.
Over the years, at least seven Ministers deceived Parliament. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), told my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) in a letter dated 10 October 1990:
There is no British Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operation, with the Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them".
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley had asked the then Prime Minister for an inquiry into repeated allegations that the Government were involved in such training, but the ex-Prime Minister dismissed that suggestion as "unfounded". But for a case that was due to go before the High Court the following week, in which

three Ministers—the right hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)—were served with subpoenas, the truth might never have emerged.
Why were the Government so reticent, and why were they prepared to gag witnesses in court? To ensure that neither of the two Defence Ministers could be called as witnesses, the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) issued public interest immunity orders. The Government continued to deny that they ever assisted the Khmer Rouge, and in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale admitted that the three factions—the KPNLF, Sihanoukists, and Khmer Rouge—
co-operate on an ad hoc basis.
In other words, British soldiers taught terrorists mine laying and guerilla techniques, and the Khmer Rouge benefited from that training.
After being inundated with letters from my constituents, I wrote to the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Brabazon of Tara. He replied on 22 Febraury 1990:
We have never given any form of support to the Khmer Rouge. We were one of the first governments to expose their brutal regime when they were in power. We are now doing what we can to prevent Pol Pot and his cronies from returning to power.
It is strong language for a Minister, to refer to
Pol Pot and his cronies".
The KPNLF and the Sihanoukists are indeed the cronies of the Khmer Rouge, and the British Government have admitted to training them.
I will conclude shortly, as a number of my hon. Friends who are much greater experts on the subject wish to contribute. The Government should apologise for deliberately misleading the House for at least eight years. Most of all, they should apologise to the innocent men, women and children of Cambodia who suffered as a direct result of the Government's policies in that region of the world. We want answers to a number of questions tonight, and I hope that the Minister will provide them.

Mr. John Bowis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on securing this debate, which concerns a subject in which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have taken a close interest over the past few years. We certainly ought to examine British policies and those of the international community, as we seek to learn the lessons of the past and to secure a peaceful and stable future for the peoples of Cambodia.
We shall not achieve that objective simply by seeking to trip up British Ministers. Britain has a role to play in that part of the world, if not a major one. As the only permanent member of the Security Council that does not have a great past there, we at least can play a part in the region's future. We should look beyond the narrow issues raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham, such as the comparatively marginal question of the training of Khmer Rouge allies acknowledged in a parliamentary answer.
The House, the country and the international community should never forget what occurred in Cambodia. As monstrosity follows monstrosity around the world, and as tyrant succeeds tyrant, it is all too easy


to put Cambodia to the back of our minds as someone else captures the headlines—be it Saddam Hussein, or someone from the South American continent that was the subject of the previous debate. Somebody will come along and people will seek to talk about that rather than the great horror of world history to which the hon. Member for Tottenham has referred.
We must never forget 1975–78, during which, as I think history will show—partly because of ancient rivalries and hatreds between the peoples of Thailand, China, Vietnam and Cambodia, and partly as a result of American foreign policy and disagreements in the post-Vietnam war period between the State Department and the White house—the Americans decided that it was more important to seek reconciliation with the Chinese Government than with the Vietnamese Government. As a result, the Khmer Rouge were given free play by their paymasters, by their gurus in Peking, to wreak havoc on the people of Cambodia. We saw Cambodia, that ancient, proud and civilised country, torn apart by the Khmer Rouge. As the hon. Member for Tottenham said, it was torn apart by Pol Pot and his henchmen. The wheels ceased to turn, towns were emptied, the fields were made barren, and even bicycles ceased to roll around Phnom Penh.
Then there was the period when the Vietnamese came to the rescue of the Cambodian people, and in so doing they brought some stability. No one suggests that they came in without their own atrocities and breaches of civilised law, but they enabled a sad country to pick itself up again. We should pay at least some tribute to the Vietnamese who enabled that to happen, even if we are critical of some of the practices employed.
We have now moved on to a period when we can begin to look forward to a solution of the problem, even though there are many question marks attached to it, through the promising getting together in recent weeks and months of the Phnom Penh Government with Sihanouk, and with some of the other members of the Khmer Rouge coalition —but not, one hopes, with Pol Pot, Ieng Sary or the worst of those—who are seeking under the Supreme National Council to find a way forward with the assistance of the international community.
The world is taking a gamble, but if the hon. Member for Tottenham is right, as I think he is, and there has been a world conspiracy against the people of Cambodia—it is not east versus west, north verses south or communist versus non-communist, but the world as a whole, including the United Nations community, China and the Soviet Union, developing and developed countries and many Asian countries—but that the world is saying now that it will learn from the past and try to ensure that peace can return to Cambodia. We should say that we shall give the gamble a try.
The hon. Member for Tottenham is right to raise questions about the gamble, as I have described it. We must ask questions of the international community. We must ask how we shall ensure that the ceasefire is monitored. If we can monitor the ceasefire in Yugoslavia through the European Community, we can surely find ways of doing that for Cambodia, whether through the United Nations or through some other international grouping. If there is to be confidence, it is crucial to ensure that the ceasefire lasts.
We must also ensure that there is confidence that the Khmer Rouge will be disarmed. It is clear that some of their leaders and groups are entering Phnom Penh—not Pol Pot, but some of the others—having left their arms outside. How can we be sure that, if things go wrong for the Khmer Rouge, they will not leave the conference table, dig up their arms and resume murdering people from their bases in the jungle? That sort of reassurance must be sought if we are to give the people of Cambodia confidence.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to mention the mines that have been laid around that area. Figures vary, but I have heard of 250 casualties, and some 80 amputees, a month. It does not matter now who was responsible for laying those mines; the world must come to the aid of those who are digging them up and trying to make them and the area safe once again. The world is ignoring that appalling catastrophe and those limbless people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that he will work with the international community to solve that problem.
The hon. Member for Tottenham spoke about trade and aid. Bringing Cambodia back into the world community must involve the reopening of trade and aid links and the removal of the embargoes with Vietnam and Cambodia. Japan is already well involved; it is Britain, America and the other western nations that are standing back. Because of that, the £44 million for aid in the United Nations development fund remains frozen.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the international community to find ways to ensure that trade and aid are pumped into Cambodia, at the same time as we are monitoring and assisting in the disarming of the Khmer Rouge. We must never relax. We must never forget that history. Even in the past few days, Khmer Rouge plans have been found that show that their tactics are still a mixture of a campaign of intimidation and a campaign of changing history through a propaganda war to persuade the Cambodian people, and then the world —although I hope that the world is not gullible enough to believe it—that the genocide of those 2 million people was nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge but was the result of Vietnamese atrocities. We will not believe that. We will support the Cambodian people.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham on raising the matter and I look forward to the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister that he, the British Government and the British people will play our part in returning peace to Cambodia.

Mr. Chris Mullin: You, Mr. Speaker, may have noted that when my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) said that he hoped that the Minister would give us more information on this issue, and with greater frankness than in the past, the Minister cheerfully shouted, "I certainly shan't." That summarises the attitude taken by a succession of Ministers towards Parliament and towards the taxpayers whose money they have been spending on nefarious projects. It also tells us that we are not likely to hear much from the Minister tonight other than the bluster and diversion that has become standard in such debates.
I pay tribute to John Pilger, David Munro and Central Television for a succession of programmes that have done


more to bring this issue before the public in Britain and throughout the world than has been achieved by anybody else who has taken an interest in the matter. I was a journalist in my previous incarnation. Inquiring journalism is a dying trade in this country, and those who practise it expect to be vilified. I framed some of the better attacks on me and they hang on my wall—"Loony MP packs bomb gang", "Mr. Odious", "Twenty things you didn't know about crackpot Chris", and so on. None of that surprised me, and I note that a number of similar articles are appearing about John Pilger. I am sure that he and Central Television will not be intimidated.
I regret that Mr. Colvin, a senior civil servant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is not here. He has taken a detailed interest in this subject over a long period. He has more knowledge and shoulders more responsibility for our policy than any of the 10 Ministers who have been responsible for it in the past decade. I notice that Mr. Colvin has started to circulate some of these articles. Such action from a civil servant is reprehensible, and I hope that it will stop.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. He represents interests that are quite different from mine, and not necessarily just those of the Conservative party.
I know which version of events I prefer—that told over the past decade or so by Mr. Pilger, Mr. Munro and Central Television. When the history of this unhappy little episode is written, they will be entirely vindicated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, on 25 June the Government admitted what some of us had been alleging for the past three years. They did so rather quietly in a planted written answer buried in Hansard, which confirmed that, from 1983 to 1989, British soldiers based in Thailand had been training Khmer terrorists.
That allegation has been repeatedly put to Ministers over the years and they have always answered with bluster saying how much they hate the Khmer Rouge and how wicked and terrible the Khmer Rouge are. They have never faced the issue that terrorists are people who plant bombs in public places. If it is wrong for the Irish Republican Army to do that, it is wrong for people who happen to be "friendly" terrorists. Thousands of people in Cambodia would not find it as easy as the Minister does to distinguish between terrorists of the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and the Khmer Rouge, to which they are so closely allied.
All those points have been put to Ministers. Parliament has been misled over a long period. On 13 March 1989, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), then briefly the custodian of Government policy on Cambodia:
If the Government want to avoid a protracted civil war in Cambodia, why are they providing special forces training to one of the participants in that war?
The Minister replied:
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I will give no answer".—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 160, c. 49.]
The subject came up repeatedly in our debate on this subject on 26 October 1990. The Minister—happily, the

hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who has record tenure in justifying Government policy on Cambodia—said:
I am personally completely satisfied that the explanations that I have been given are comprehensive and accurate.
He declined to share those explanations with the House and said:
I cannot say more than I have said … I must place it clearly on record that the British Government, of course, utterly and clearly refute the allegations made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and by Mr. Pilger in his programme."—[Official Report, 26 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 692.]
The burden of the allegations was that British soldiers based in Thailand, funded by British taxpayers' money, were training terrorists. Such reports did not originate with Mr. Pilger; there is a wealth of other material on the subject, some of it from unlikely sources. On 24 September 989, The Sunday Telegraph reported:
British Army teams—almost certainly from the SAS—have been training guerrillas of the Sihanoukist National Army of Cambodia at a secret training base in Thailand for the past two years.

Mr. Allason: Almost certainly.

Mr. Mullin: I had not realised that that was controversial.
On 30 September, Jane's Defence Weekly referred to
the creation of a 250-man KPNLF sabotage battalion prepared by four Cambodian instructors … The latter were graduates of the UK-led courses, though this was not noted at the time"—
in the previous report—
members of the sabotage battalion were taught how to attack installations such as bridges, railway lines, radar stations, power lines and substations … Small group tactics and use of improvised explosives were also covered.
Jeremy Stone in The New York Times, in an article in November 1989, said:
The US is waging a secret war in Cambodia against the Hun Sen Government—knowing full well that none other than the genocidal Khmer Rouge"—
I hope that the Minister is listening to this—
are likely to be the ultimate beneficiaries. Even as White House officials shed crocodile tears over signs of the growing military strength of the Khmer Rouge, they are continuing to use US financial and intelligence resources to weaken the Vietnamese-installed Hun Sen Government, the only faction capable of preventing a military takeover of the Khmer Rouge.
It then goes on to describe a secret organisation set up in Bangkok called the Cambodian working group, through which all aid for the various terrorist factions was to be funneled. It says:
The United States pays $24 million annually
that is in 1989—
to support the resistance, and the Son Sann group is getting $150,000 a month for operating expenses alone … Through a Thai intelligence entity called 838, the Cambodian guerrillas receive weapons, food and other support.
Jeremy Stone goes on to say:
So the irony is exquisite. We are redoubling our efforts to overthrow Hun Sen even while we announce that such a result would produce a Khmer Rouge takeover … From every objective point of view we are allied with the genocidal Khmer Rouge.
Those are not allegations made by Mr. Pilger, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South or any other hon. Member; that is The New York Times. It has been widely remarked upon. It is clear that the non-Khmer Rouge factions of the so-called phoney alliance are almost entirely the creation of a handful of western Governments, principally the United States, but by no means entirely the


United States. Britain has had a part to play in that operation. I think that the French have had a part to play in it. The Thais have had a large part to play in harbouring all three factions. It is a matter of record that the Khmer Rouge themselves have a large number of facilities on Thai Government soil.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, over the years successive British Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, have misled the country and the House on the issue. As my hon. Friend said, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 17 October 1990 saying:
I confirm that there is no British Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.
That may have been true on 9 October 1990, but what the Prime Minister omitted to say was that we had been training them up to a year before that. The phrase—the wording is always identical—
or those allied to them
appeared in a succession of ministerial letters around that time. The Foreign Secretary and various other Ministers wrote that, and they all did so in the knowledge that the training had been going on and had stopped only just before that. That is being rather economical with the truth.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Lying.

Mr. Mullin: No one has actually lied to the House, but no one has told the truth. All of them knew the truth but despite repeated opportunities they deliberately misled the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that the House has been deliberately misled.

Mr. Mullin: I am prepared for the possibility that the House might have been inadvertantly misled, but misled it certainly was.
I look down the long list of Ministers who, during the past decade or so, have had responsibility for this disastrous little venture, and I wonder which of them was in charge at the time of this particular training scheme—a rather unfortunate expression—at the time the Special Air Services were introduced into the Thai border.
As I look down the list, my eye lights on the name of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who was, between August 1982 and February 1983, the Minister responsible for Cambodia. This was exactly the sort of crazy scheme with which one might expect him to be associated. It was what is known in the parlance as a "touch of the Cranley Onslows". Perhaps he was not the one, however. The Minister responsible between August 1983 and November 1985—for over two years—was none other than the present Foreign Secretary. All those people must have known at the time—they must have been consulted when the scheme came into operation—yet they chose not to tell the truth.
We are told that, when he became Foreign Secretary, the present Foreign Secretary found out about all this and decided to do away with it immediately. If so, I am grateful to him for that, but he was responsible for these matters for two whole years earlier on, while the SAS were actively training the terrorists in Cambodia.
The statement that we were given in the planted written answer on 25 June was far from the whole truth. It failed to tell us what kind of training was provided. Taxpayers are entitled to know that. My information is that it included planting sophisticated, delayed-action mines of the sort that were certainly responsible for many of the hideous injuries inflicted on military and civilian personnel in Cambodia.
I read in The Independent last week that two little girls fishing in a river in Kampot hooked a floating mine which blew their arms off. I do not know whether it was a Khmer Rouge mine, or a KPNLF mine. I do not know whether we trained the terrorists or whether someone else did; but as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) pointed out, 20,000 people in Cambodia have had limbs blown off by mines. The whole west of the country is a vast minefield, and I have no doubt that some of the mines were planted as a result of training received by the terrorists from British soldiers.
It is more than tragic that the good people of Oxfam and the Red Cross should he attempting in Cambodia to repair the damage and run hospitals to provide the amputees with some means of survival, while on the other side of the border, people employed by Her Majesty's Government are attempting to destroy those same civilians.
The statement of 25 June did not tell us the location either. My information is that some of the training occurred at the border in a camp known as site B. Some of it took place in Malaysia, too. We first started training Cambodians in Malaysia in 1970, shortly after Prince Sihanouk was overthrown in the coup organised and inspired by the United States. When the United States and British Governments tell us how urgent it is that the prince should be back in Cambodia, it is worth recalling that we helped to overthrow him in the first place and that we celebrated his overthrow and exploited it.
I am told that a gentleman who until 1989 was based in the British embassy in Bangkok, a Mr. Dennis Galwey, was responsible for overseeing the British role in military training in Thailand. In The Spectator of 4 May, Derek Tonkin—the British ambassador to Thailand until 1989 and thus in place while much of all this was going on, and whom I had challenged to deny that British soldiers based in Thailand had been training Khmer terrorists—wrote:
Mr. Mullin invites me to deny it. I deny it.
How does that compare with the Government's answer of 25 June?
Did operations really cease in 1989? The Government say that they did, but they have told us all sorts of things over the years. Perhaps the matter was privatised, because such operations, when they become embarrassing, have a long history of being put out to people who call themselves ex-SAS or ex-this or ex-that. There are many bogus airlines in south-east Asia which operate for the Central Intelligence Agency. Bird Air was the big one in Cambodia, but Air America is the most famous in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
I do not know and do not allege that the operation was privatised, but if it was a good idea before the autumn of 1989 and remained a good idea for six or seven years, why did it suddenly stop being a good idea? If the Minister intends to shed light on anything, perhaps he will at least say why the operation was wound up, because that is a


puzzling question. If the truth was leaking out, that may have been a motive for stopping, but I suppose that the Minister will have a more sophisticated explanation.
Exactly what is still being covered up? I have a letter from the Treasury Solicitor which was addressed to the defendants in a recent libel case involving two shadowy figures whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester) ran into in Cambodia in September 1989. The letter states:
It is the Crown's view that the public interest
public interest, my foot—
… requires that only certain information can be disclosed in court. That Information is contained in a statement made this afternoon to the House of Commons by means of a written answer 
That is the answer of 25 June to which I have referred.
The text of that answer is attached to this letter. It is accepted that this information, but no more, may be made public without damage to the public interest. Any further information would attract a claim for public interest immunity.
That is not exactly the level playing field that we have come to expect from the Government. It seems that one side in that recent libel case was playing with its arms tied behind its back, while the other side had at its disposal the full resources of the British state. I have here an affidavit sworn by the Secretary of State which also became available for the purposes of the libel action. It states:
As will be seen in the statement to which I have referred"—
that is, the answer of 25 June—
it contains no details of the training given to the armed forces of the Cambodian non-communist resistance. The statement has been carefully limited so as to disclose no more than can in the considered opinion of the Crown be disclosed without injury to the public interest. In my opinion the making of any further disclosure whether or not by evidence given by any person orally or by reference to any documents concerning the involvement of specialist Crown personnel in any covert activities or security operations or as to their nature, method, circumstances or the identity of any person engaged in them would cause damage to the public interest for the reasons set out below. It is my judgment that any such further disclosure would cause unquantifiable damage to the Crown's ability to conduct any such activities or operations currently or in the future.
The affidavit goes on to say that the information would be of value to foreign powers.
I am unable to see how British people learning about the activities of British soldiers based in Thailand, some 8,000 miles from here, could possibly be a threat to national security. What are the Government trying to hide? We shall shortly hear a great deal of bluster from the Minister. The Government cannot have much confidence in their case when they have to issue affidavits of that nature in an at tempt to gag witnesses and fix the outcome of the case. I regret that that case was settled, because if a jury had found out the truth about what was going on, the outcome might have been somewhat different.
If the past is anything to go by, the Minister will be at pains to assure us that the Government have not supported the Khmer Rouge. He will even generate a little synthetic indignation at that suggestion. He is deluding himself. It is a matter of record that the organisations that we have been supporting—the KPNLF and the Army of Sihanouk—are closely allied to the Khmer Rouge.
I have here a report from The Sunday Correspondent of 5 November 1989. It speaks of Prince Norodom

Ranariddh, who is the son of Prince Sihanouk. Those of us who have met him know that he is a chip off the old block and can bullshit in about four languages. It says:
Prince Norodom Ranariddh, the son of the nominal leader of the resistance coalition, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, said last week that links between the non-Communist groups and the Khmer Rouge were closer than ever. Combat co-operation was total he said, and the Sihanoukists celebrated Khmer Rouge victories as their own.
So much for funding the non-Khmer Rouge elements.
I know that, a couple of months ago, there was a meeting at the Foreign Office between Lord Caithness and the former Prime Minister of Thailand, who was recently overthrown in a military coup, and some of his close advisers. Mr. Colvin of the Foreign Office was also present. One of the advisers said that, in the field, the Khmer Rouge is in command of all three factions. All those there said nothing—they just sat there and nodded. The Government cannot say that they do not know.
Secondly, as the Minister knows, between 1979 and 1982, the British representative to the United Nations supported the seating of a Government formed solely by the Khmer Rouge. The fraudulent coalition did not come about until 1982–83. The Minister cannot say that we did not support the Khmer Rouge, because we did. For the following seven or eight years, we supported the fraudulent coalition, which was dominated by the Khmer Rouge. The Cambodian representative in the UN was Mr. Thioun Prasith, whose brothers occupied three of the top 10 posts in the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979.
Thirdly, we provided food aid, through the UN border operation, much of which found its way into the terrorist resistance. Film has been shown of Khmer Rouge porters carrying that food away. Pol Pot was once housed in the Erawan hotel in Bangkok, although the Khmer Rouge leaders now stay at the Sheraton. All this went on quite openly, under the noses of many people over a long time.
The Government have got themselves into a sad and embarrassing situation. The hon. Member for Battersea said that we should look forward and not backwards, and I am inclined to agree with him—but before one can look forward, one must first face the truth. It is therefore necessary for the Minister to face the truth. So long as he cannot do that, he must not be surprised that there will be those of us who attempt forcibly to draw his attention to the truth.

Mr. Rupert Allason: In my aborted intervention, I wanted to ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), when he spoke about his work as a researcher and investigative journalist and drew parallels between it and that of John Pilger, whether he had ever got his facts wrong, whether they had been challenged in the courts, and whether he had been forced to withdraw and apologise. I have followed his career with interest. He is an assiduous researcher and a doughty campaigner. I do not recall his ever having had to do that.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I cannot believe that this proposition was based on an action that was lost in the High Court. The plaintiffs won, and received an apology. If such remarks were made outside the Chamber, another action for defamation would be brought.
I do not believe that there is a parallel between the hon. Gentleman and John Pilger. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being immodest. He says that he is sorry that


the case was settled. I know something about the laws of defamation, having been on the receiving end of a libel case in the not too distant past. Indeed, I am in a rather difficult position: on that occasion, I appealed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will be answering tonight's debate.
There is a parallel here, in that my case involved someone who had lied—and whom I knew to have lied —about his military record during the second world war. With the greatest regret, Ministers said that a precedent was involved in relation to public immunity. I subpoenaed people to give evidence for me. The issue concerned events that had taken place years before—before 1963, and, in the case of the war record, before 1945—but it was not aired in court, because of a certificate issued by the Secretary of State.
The John Pilger programme, which I watched, was built on supposition and innuendo. It contained no concrete facts. As a journalist, I was somewhat ashamed, and hoped that rather more facts existed to back up what I saw on the screen. After the programme, I asked my hon. Friend categorically whether SAS personnel were deployed in Cambodia. I was given a categorical assurance that they were not.
Let us consider what has taken place in court recently. John Pilger was challenged by the people whom he identified. It was not a question of any kind of settlement; he agreed that he had been wrong, and apologised—as did a Member of the European Parliament who had made similar baseless allegations. The two individuals concerned were British observers.
I have followed the aftermath of the case. Bearing in mind what William Shawcross wrote in the Sunday Telegraph last week, I am surprised that John Pilger has the temerity to continue to pursue the matter—and, indeed, that the hon. Member for Tottenham should be prepared to do so. The answer has been given.
I do not think that any hon. Member would support the Government for a moment if he believed that the Khmer Rouge were receiving support, or that children's limbs were being blown off, because specialist SAS personnel were training the Khmer Rouge. Certainly I would not do so. I simply do not believe that that is happening, and I accepted my hon. Friend's word when he gave me an assurance in the House. It is common knowledge that training was given from a base in Thailand, but the proposition, or conspiracy theory—constructed on the basis of an acknowledgement in a written answer—that all sorts of nefarious activities have taken place in Cambodia, and are continuing to take place, defies belief.
Both the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and the hon. Member for Tottenham have done themselves a disservice. When they look back on this episode, I very much hope that they will see that it is a case study of a left-wing ideologue, John Pilger, who has simply got it wrong. He was also proved to have got it wrong. He admitted that he had got it wrong. He apologised to the persons concerned for getting it wrong. Now it is being produced once again. I very much regret it.
I hope that I shall be allowed to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in urging the House to look to the future. By trade, I am a historian. I believe that what took place in the past is of enormous importance

—it rightly influences our current perceptions and our future behaviour. But the hope, surely, for that tragic, war-torn country in south-east Asia is that it should return to peace as soon as possible. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) says that Mr. Pilger was proved to have got it wrong.

Mr. Allason: He admitted it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: He agreed that he had got it wrong. There is a difference between the two phrases which perhaps the hon. Gentleman—knowing the detail into which he invariably goes—will wish to consider.
The programme "The Betayal" lasted, I understand, some 30 or 40 minutes. The greater part of it was correct and will be proven to be correct. It may be that part of the programme contained an error. Mr. Pilger and his colleague, Mr. Munro, have apologised. The hon. Member for Torbay should view the whole programme in the context of its overall message. He should not allow himself to be influenced by a particular part of it, about which there is some controversy.
In the course of the libel action, which began on 2 July and ended on 5 July, John Pilger and David Munro argued that reference to these two men was not meant, in the film they produced, to suggest that they themselves were involved in training the Khmer Rouge. It was the judge who ruled that, in his judgment, he was satisfied that the words used in the film were capable of the interpretation that Mr. Geidt and Mr. de Normann placed upon them —that they were involved in military training.
The trial was abandoned after an out-of-court settlement was agreed between the parties. The hon. Member for Torbay should recognise why it was agreed: because the judge ruled that certain evidence was inadmissible in the trial. I agree with the judge that, as the law stands, that evidence was inadmissible. I disagree with Mr. Pilger, as he would tell the hon. Member for Torbay, if he were to meet him. He should not seek to misrepresent what happened, which was that an out-of-court settlement was arrived at because Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro were unable in any way to put their evidence, which they believed would have influenced the jury if it had been heard.
Following the trial, Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro issued a press statement which stated:
It should be made clear that these two men"—
their words—
who sued us played no part in guerilla training.
Since December last, I have always argued that, as absolute evidence did not exist proving their involvement, Geidt and de Normann would win their action. Indeed, because of that, I argued in favour of an out-of-court settlement. But Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro have always sought to argue that they never alleged such involvement, and that on such a premise they would base their whole defence.
I want to deal with what happened in that trial and its bearing on British foreign policy on Cambodia. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Bailey (Mrs. Clwyd) first met Geidt and de Normann in Phnom Penh in September 1989, in the company of the hon. Member for Broxtowe


(Mr. Lester). The Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), told the House:
Those two men did not visit Indochina at our behest or as representatives of the Government. They went privately, at the invitation of the Institute for International Relations at Hanoi … Through the institute, they were introduced to the Phnom Penh authorities. Those authorities then invited them to witness the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia".—[Official Report, 26 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 691.]
The public should be aware that much argument surrounds the activities of those two men, but it is argument that they have brought upon themselves because of the way in which they conducted themselves and because of the statements that they made. Their public statements have been most unconvincing. Nevertheless, I agree with the statement that Mr. Pilger and Mr. Munro made. Those two men made highly unconvincing statements, and I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay will research what they said.
In a covering letter to the Vietnamese embassy, de Normann was listed as a personal assistant to Geidt, as if he was from the Royal United Services Institute. That was untrue. I challenge Mr. de Normann and Mr. Geidt to question what I am saying.
In the same letter, Geidt said that he was part of an official two-man delegation. That was untrue. Group Captain David. Bolton, director of the RUSI, denied that they were representing the RUSI. It was not an official delegation.
Geidt referred to himself in his letter to the Vietnamese and Cambodians as assistant director of RUSI. That was not true and had never been so. He was an assistant to the director—a very different role indeed. They both contended, as did the Foreign Secretary, that they were invited by the Hanoi Institute and the Phnom Penh Government. That was not true. They sought to be invited by the respective authorities, and evidence exists to show that.
In a letter to Central Television, lawyers for Geidt said that he was not military. That was not true. Mr. Geidt had links with military intelligence and had served in the regular Army.
Why did they make these statements if they were not true? Has not it dawned on them that, when such statements are made and people subsequently find out the truth, they begin to question the identity of those involved, from which was born much of the programme "The Betrayal". If they had been truthful in everything they had said to the appropriate authorities, there would have been no reference to that in the programme. In many ways, they were responsible for what happened.
It is not surprising, with the truth so easily denied on such a scale, that Central Television felt it prudent to spend what is rumoured to be £350,000 defending Pilger and Munro in a libel trial. Notwithstanding such errors fact, when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), was asked about contacts between Geidt, de Normann and the Ministry of Defence, he stated:
The only contact with the Ministry of Defence in relation to the visit that has been traced was a routine inquiry by Mr. de Normann prior to departure to check on the regulations governing visits by ex-service personnel to communist countries."—[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 923.]

That was a perfectly acceptable request to make. But what happened? That answer was quickly amended when it was realised that the libel trial was proceeding. On 13 May, the story changed. The MOD, out of the blue, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin):
More recently it has come to light that Mr. Mackenzie Geidt had an informal discussion"—
the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) knows all about such discussions and he has written many books about them—
with an MOD officer in October 1989 on his return from Indochina
Cambodia—
during which he passed on some impressions he had gained about the political and military position in Cambodia which he thought would be of general interest to the Department.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay can tell me what that means. I think that I know what it means. The hon. Gentleman has written many books on such subjects, and I am sure that he could extrapolate within the remit of fact.

Mr. Allason: I am as good at conspiracy theories as the next man, but I think that you are going a stage too far—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am quoting a Minister.

Mr. Allason: But you are quoting so terribly selectively. You are saying that a letter written by a legal representative to the television company was incorrect and you say that he had links to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Allason: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are talking about the ministerial reply. Perhaps he misunderstood what I said.
None of those matters ever came out in the libel trial. In many ways, it was perhaps right that they should not have done so because they may not have been relevant once the judge had taken his decision. The onus was on Mr. Munro and Mr. Pilger to prove their facts conclusively before the trial, with all the evidence available. Of course, it was not quite possible in the circumstances.
None of those matters ever came out in the trial, because the judge, for reasons that I perfectly understand, on the basis of the law as it stands and following representations from the Government, ruled such material inadmissible. Pilger and Munro were very angry about the cloak of secrecy surrounding the trial. Throughout the trial, the Government did their utmost to hide the facts behind Government policy. They even quoted "Spycatcher".
The hon. Member for Torbay will remember that debate. He and I were on the same side and he argued my case. He argued then that the Government should never use such a defence in a court of law. On this occasion, does he think that they should have done? The Government intervened to block five subpoenas on three Ministers and the head of the Special Air Services, with the use of public interest indemnity orders in the name of the Secretary of State for Defence—I understand that he signed them. The jury were totally unaware of those matters and if required to make a judgment—which they were not—would still have remained unaware of them, because they were inadmissible in the courts.
The truth is that, if it had not been for the trial, the public would never have known the truth of Britain's involvement in Cambodia between 1983 and 1989. Every answer over all those years always avoided identifying where the money was going and where the military support was being given. The Government did not want the truth to come out. It was only the libel trial which extracted from the Government on 25 June the statement that we had all the time been supporting two of the three factions in the non-communist coalition, but not, the Government maintained, the third—the Khmer Rouge.
However, I believe that the answer that refers to "ad hoc arrangements" and the statement of Prince Sihanouk's son suggest that some co-operation went on. The Government may have believed that they were not supporting the training of the Khmer Rouge, but the Khmer Rouge were infiltrating the camps of the two other factions in the coalition and were securing training through the back door without official knowledge and approval of the British Government. That is why they could answer all the questions in the way in which they did over all those years. If the Minister were to concede that tonight, it would make a lot of difference.
It has cost £350,000 to establish the fact that the Government trained the non-communist resistence in Cambodia. The Government could have admitted that years ago. As for Geidt and de Normann, they became the unnecessary casualties of the whole exercise. That never should have happened and it cannot be excused, but to some extent they brought it upon themselves by failing to be more forthcoming and truthful about their activities. I am not convinced that those individuals are too unhappy with the results of their actions.

Mr. Jim Lestor: I apologise to the House for not being here earlier, but I have spoken in every debate on Cambodia since the issue was taken up.
The debate is about the Government's policy towards Cambodia. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that we should now be trying to look forward as things are looking far more healthy following the recent meeting in Peking with the Supreme National Council.
We have heard a great deal about the military and about the re-running of the Pilger film. It was a profound disappointment to me to learn from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that we had given miltitary training from 1983 to 1989. I had defended the Government in the House against that claim on many occasions. I had argued that I did not believe that such training was possible because we believed in the Foreign Office's policy by objectives.
I could not see any possible Foreign Office objective in training two elements of the coalition force against the Phnom Penh regime. It was a profound disappointment to discover that the claims about such training were true. The Government statements were economical with the truth, and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is now investigating the matter, because we do not feel that the manner in which those statements were given was correct.
We should now look forward. Following the conference in Peking, attended by the Minister's representatives,

where do we stand now? Where do we stand in terms of aid to Phnom Penh and Cambodia? The Supreme National Council will form in the capital and it will represent all the groups. What are the priorities in terms of aid? I believe that there are three.
The first and foremost priority, as we understand it from representatives of the Phnom Penh regime, is English language training. They are desperately anxious for that, and we could undertake that relatively quickly. Secondly, it is equally important that a de-mining programme is undertaken soon. It is essential that the many mines that were laid in that poor country by all sides, and which are extracting terrible casualties from the civilan population, should be removed quickly. Thirdly, plans should be drawn up to bring in United Nations organisations to restore the infrastructure—the roads and the telecommunications system—as quickly as possible.
We should plan to act on those essentials as quickly as possible once the Supreme National Council resumes its role in Phnom Penh.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Those of us who have taken a long interest in Cambodia would have a lot to say tonight if there were time to say it. However, I am anxious that the Minister should have time to answer in detail the questions put to him by my hon. Friends. It is important that he should set the record straight today.
Over the years as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said, the Government have all too often been economical with the truth. They have misled Parliament continuously, and at least seven Ministers are responsible for that.
Although I share my hon. Friend's disappointment and anger about what happened in the past, I want to talk about the aid and future needs of Cambodia. Cambodia has 20,000 mine amputees for whom we bear considerable responsibility, and 86,000 displaced people due to the ongoing civil war, for which we also share much of the responsibility.
Last April, a consortium of non-governmental organisations called for $12 million. So far, the response has been $500,000. The Government and the European Community should respond to that request. The 300,000 refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border have been there since 1979, and we now hope that they will have a future in a peaceful Cambodia. It is encouraging that the factions are talking and that there is an agreed international ceasefire.
However, Ministers must be accountable to Parliament. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made that point in the House just a couple of weeks ago. Other democracies do not have the same paranoia about national security as our Government seem to have. They seem to be able to accommodate secrecy and security without dashing for cover and invoking public immunity orders at the drop of a hat. It is ironic that former eastern bloc countries are looking at ways to make their security services accountable to an independent body. Even the KGB now has a press officer.
As Melanie Phillips said in The Guardian last Friday:
The law in Britain at the moment makes it a criminal offence to disclose anything about the security services … but a law which puts an arm of a State outside the law is immoral, undemocratic and wrong.


In a democratic country there should be one test—whether people are allowed access to enough information to meet their needs as citizens and to ensure that their servants are running the country properly. Although we all recognise that secrecy is sometimes in the public interest, we should also expect that, in a democracy, disclosure can sometimes be in the public interest. Until that is recognised, the elected members of the Opposition are in no doubt that the Government's first priority has been to mislead Parliament and the public continuously between 1983 and 1989 over their activities in Cambodia. As my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) have said, the Government owe us an explanation and, most of all, they owe the people of Cambodia an abject apology.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on raising this important subject once again. I am pleased that we are debating it again this evening. It is not a subject for which I am responsible in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but, each time that it comes back for debate, I find that my interest for and concern about the subject grows.
I am on good personal terms with virtually all hon. Members who have participated in the debate, even when they allege a cover up, which I utterly refute. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) for saying that we should look to the future, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that he would be met with some bluster by me. I wish to say something that will be controversial, but I shall say it at the outset because I do not seek to shirk it. I shall not elaborate tonight on the written answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces..

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Well, I do not believe that anyone thinks that I shall do so, because, at the end of that written answer, my right hon. Friend said that that was as far as the Government were prepared to go at that time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that that was a blocking answer under our parliamentary procedures?

Madame Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Obviously, I recognise that hon. Members in any quarter of the House may criticise me for what I am saying, but that is the position, and I am prepared to face that criticism. Furthermore, I shall not comment on the libel actions, including the one with which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was involved, which has not been mentioned by anyone.
I wish to comment on the interesting developments that have been taking place in the past few months. Last November, the permanent five and the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia between France and Indonesia met in Paris to complete the task that they had already begun. of turning the five's framework into a fully worked-out draft settlement document. That document

became known at the United Nations plan. It comprises those elements which the permanent five and the co-chairmen consider essential components of a comprehensive political settlement.
Hon. Members will recall that, in September 1990, all four Cambodian parties agreed to form a Supreme National Council, but because they could not agree on a chairman, the SNC could not function. Nonetheless, the Paris conference co-chairmen decided to present the draft document to SNC members in Paris on 20 and 21 December 1990. The response was mixed. There was unanimous Cambodian support for the five's framework; and the resistance members of the SNC accepted the document in its entirety. But Hun Sen and his colleagues had reservations.
Much time and effort was spent in the first six months of this year in trying to bridge the gap between the Phnom Penh regime and the resistance coalition, so that the peace process could move forward again. It was not an easy task. The resistance coalition refused to contemplate amendments to the draft settlement document, but Hun Sen could not accept the document as it stood.
A number of countries, notably the co-chairmen, Australia and Japan, suggested various ways of attempting to meet Hun Sen's concerns without alienating the resistance. But none of their proposals was wholly acceptable to the Cambodians, who appeared unwilling at that stage to compromise for the sake of peace.
In late April, however, the Paris conference cochairmen rightly concluded that it was important to restore momentum to the process if it was not to stall altogether. They therefore proposed that, although the SNC was still without a chairman, they and the SNC should meet in early June with the aim of clarifying and, if possible, resolving the issues dividing the Cambodians. More significantly, they also called on the armed forces of all the Cambodian parties to observe a temporary ceasefire from 1 May, at least until after the meeting, to enable it to take place in a constructive atmosphere.
Against the expectations of most observers, all four Cambodian parties committed themselves to observing the ceasefire—the first time that they had all agreed on such a move. That was a milestone and, as more recent events have demonstrated, a turning point in the peace process. We warmly welcomed the way in which the Cambodians were finally heeding repeated international calls for self-restraint. For the most part, the ceasefire held, to the extent that the co-chairmen and the United Nations Secretariat felt able to dispatch a small "good offices" mission to observe it. Its report was encouraging.
The success of the temporary ceasefire made the outcome of the co-chairmen's meeting with the SNC, in Jakarta on 2 and 4 June, all the more disappointing. There was continued intransigence both on the part of Hun Sen and the Khmer Rouge. Hun Sen presented extensive amendments to the draft settlement document, but the Khmer Rouge refused to accept a deal between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen which would have resolved the problem of SNC's chairmanship. The Khmer Rouge also threatened to resume fighting in Cambodia from 6 June.
Behind the scenes, however, it was clear that Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen were making progress towards some kind of personal rapprochement. There were also signs of a shift in China's position, perhaps indicating growing unwillingness to support the Khmer Rouge at any cost. At any rate, Prince Sihanouk seized the opportunity


to assert his authority over all the Cambodian parties and convened a meeting of the SNC in Thailand from 24 to 26 June. That meeting achieved welcome, but largely unexpected, success.
It was agreed that Prince Sihanouk should be de facto chairman of the SNC—a major breakthrough—and that he should lead an SNC delegation to this year's United Nations General Assembly. Most important of all, the meeting agreed that the forces of all four Cambodian factions would continue to observe an unlimited ceasefire; and would, moreover, not receive further outside supplies of weapons. We warmly welcomed the outcome of that meeting, and congratulated Prince Sihanouk and all the Cambodian parties on their constructive and positive approach.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm or deny that military training is still being provided by the British Government to the non-communist resistance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I stand by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), which was absolutely clear. I must get on—I will not give way again.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my debate. having been granted to me by Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have a right to ask the Minister to answer the debate. He is stating some obscure Government policy, but he is not answering the questions that were raised.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman may feel frustrated, but the points that he makes are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he does not show his desire to see progress made in Cambodia. I should like an opportunity to continue describing what is happening.
We regarded the unlimited continuation of the ceasefire and agreement on the functioning of the SNC as important steps in the peace process, and we urged all the Cambodian parties to work for the comprehensive political settlement, which, we believed, remained the key to a lasting solution to the Cambodian conflict.
Despite that notable achievement by the Cambodians themselves—the first time that they had met on their own initiative—we and others could not fail to notice that they had not addressed the contentious issues that have for so long divided them. If there is to be a durable peace settlement, those problems cannot be ignored. Given the history of false starts that plagued the Cambodian peace process for so many years, we must avoid the temptation to be over-optimistic.
The Cambodians' willingness and ability to co-operate and achieve compromise may yet fail. None the less, the developments in Thailand did give cause for hope that we may finally be on the verge of a breakthrough that could, in the foreseeable future, bring an end to the misery and suffering of the Cambodian people.
The latest events reinforce that hope, although we continue to be cautious. Last week, an informal meeting of SNC members took place in Peking, again under Prince Sihanouk's chairmanship. It continued to take decisions in the spirit of the earlier, formal SNC meeting in Thailand.

The issue of the SNC's chairmanship was finally resolved when Prince Sihanouk was unanimously elected its president. The SNC is therefore now a properly functioning body.
The meeting also agreed that Hun Sen, Hor Nam Hong, Son Sann, and Khieu Samphan would accompany Prince Sihanouk to this year's United Nations General Assembly, and that the SNC would represent Cambodia at meetings of the Mekong committee, an important body in the development of Indochina. It decided too that the next formal meeting of the SNC would take place in Bangkok in late August. In pursuit of its previous commitment to observe an unlimited ceasefire, the meeting agreed that Prince Sihanouk should ask the United Nations to send an appropriate number of UN personnel to control the ceasefire and the cessation of foreign military aid, preceded by a survey mission to establish how that control would take place.
Mention of Mr. David Colvin has been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. Mr. Colvin was in Peking from 16 to 20 July. He is still on a foreign trip, and that is why he is not here. He attended, first, in the margins of the SNC's informal meeting on 16 July and then later as one of the United Kingdom's delegates at the meeting of the permanent five and co-chairmen. His record of involvement in the search for a comprehensive political settlement is exemplary, and I wish to defend him tonight.
The permanent five and the co-chairmen had already decided to take advantage of the Cambodians' meeting in Peking to hold one of their own there immediately afterwards, and they did. The five and the co-chairmen welcomed the SNC proposal that a United Nations survey mission go to Cambodia to begin the process of preparing for the military aspects of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and to consider how the United Nations Secretary-General could use his good offices to help maintain the present ceasefire.
They welcomed the Cambodians' self-imposed ceasefire and ban on receiving arms supplies and undertook to respect this decision themselves. They also agreed to meet again in Bangkok on 29 and 30 August following the SNC's meeting there, and to hold discussions with the SNC. Finally, the five and the co-chairmen "viewed positively" the sending of diplomatic representatives to the SNC after it establishes itself in Phnom Penh "in the expectation of" free and fair elections under United Nations auspices, as part of a comprehensive settlement.
I am delighted to be able to report these positive developments. Not only is there renewed and sustainable momentum in the peace process. All the Cambodian factions have at last recognised the need for co-operation, consensus and compromise if there is to be peace in Cambodia. They are demonstrating this in their willingness to work together. Their commitment to ensure that the fighting stops and cannot begin again will create the right atmosphere for negotiation, and relieve the suffering of the Cambodian people.
Much work remains to be done. The Cambodians have still to tackle the divisive issues, and a major task of the five and co-chairmen in coming weeks will be to encourage constructive discussion of these difficult areas. But the more the Cambodians can agree among themselves, the easier the task for the United Nations will be. The Cambodians have been left in no doubt that, if they want the support and assistance of the international community, they must work together with the permanent five, the


co-chairmen and, in due course, the Paris conference on Cambodia to produce an agreement which is acceptable to all, Cambodians and the United Nations alike. In practice, that means a comprehensive agreement, including all the elements which the five and the co-chairmen have already judged indispensable.
We shall continue to play our full part, both as a permanent member of the Security Council and with our other friends and partners, in these renewed efforts to end 12 years of conflict. A settlement would not just mean a permanent end to fighting in Cambodia and the prospect of legitimate and representative government in Phnom Penh. It would open the way to the large-scale multilateral reconstruction and development aid that Cambodia so desperately needs.
We hope that Cambodia can very quickly reap the benefits of a functioning SNC. The United Nations secretariat has already indicated that it may be willing to do business with the SNC as a government structure. The sooner the SNC takes advantage of this the better, for this in turn could enable the United Nations development programme to implement a country programme using the funds set aside for Cambodia during the past 10 years.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear to the House in the past, we shall be ready to play our part with other donors in contributing to Cambodia's aid needs in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. Meanwhile, we shall continue to support the humanitarian work of British organisations and the international agencies in Cambodia.
Our commitment to Cambodia remains undiminished. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the current momentum towards a peace settlement is sustained and strengthened. We shall continue to contribute to meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of the Cambodian people. We are committed to playing our part in implementing an internationally agreed comprehensive settlement, and we shall provide every support we can to all the Cambodian leaders who now accept that, despite the work of others, peace can be achieved only if they themselves co-operate.

Orders of the Day — Abortifacient Drug (Licence)

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for this opportunity to talk about the drug RU486. The purpose of the debate is to call the attention of the House and the country to this abortifacient drug, which is manufactured by Roussel Uclaf, a subsidiary of the international company, Hoechst, which is based in Germany. As an active campaigner on pro-life issues, I took an interest in the drug mainly because it was one of the first drugs developed purely and simply to kill—and against that background we should consider it very seriously. I am sure that hon. Members will listen carefully to the objections to the drug.
The purpose of the debate is to call for the withdrawal of the drug, which was licensed on 1 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is planned to introduce it into the national health service in the near future. I do not want to concentrate on the pro-life arguments this evening—they are perfectly clear. I want to discuss the other factors that are being ignored by many of the people who are considering this matter.
The first is the insufficiency of the research into RU486, which is a danger to the health of the women who take it. The long-term costs of the NHS could be vast because the chances are that the drug will produce deformed and damaged children. Britain is being used as a guinea pig by the manufacturer to set an example to the rest of the world, and especially the third world, where it could be used with disastrous consequences. Only two countries currently license RU486. One is France, where the drug is manufactured and the French Government have 40 per cent. of the shares in the manufacturer.
On the question of insufficient research, Dr Turchen —a member of the United States Public Health Association and a well-known pro-abortionist—has claimed that all but one of the studies on the drug have been financed by the manufacturer. In answer to a written question two weeks ago, the Minister of State, Department of Health, said that no independent studies had been carried out in the United Kingdom by the Medicines Control Agency. By implication, that must mean that all the research programmes on the drug that were considered by the agency were carried out and paid for by the manufacturer.
As a consequence of the lack of independent research, there is no evidence to show what the long-term effects will be for women who use RU486. It has been described as a powerful steroid. It has neoplastic qualities, so in simple terms it is cancer-causing. In a recent study on 11 normal, healthy male volunteers who took the drug twice a day for seven to 14 days, one developed adrenal insufficiency, which is potentially fatal, and a further eight developed widespread, unpleasant skin rashes. In another study, four women developed hirsutism, a male pattern of baldness or menstrual irregularity. That was after only a short period taking the drug.
Tests on animals in the United Kingdom have shown that the drug is cancer-causing. The chemical cocktail of the drug works away in the body of the woman. The long-term effects are not known, as is admitted by the drug's supporters. This House, the Medicines Control


Agency and the other agencies throughout the world with responsibility for licensing RU486 all agree that we cannot predict the long-term effects of the drug.
According to an answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), drug licences are granted in this country within, on average, 19 months, and only when the matter is not referred for examination to the drug committee of the Department of Health. RU486 was fast-tracked—it was licensed within 10 months. The only reason given is that it will save money for the national health service.
The Chinese carried out a study into RU486 involving 3,000 patients. The conclusion was that the drug was three times more expensive than a clinical abortion. The Chinese totally reject the argument that it will be cheaper. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that a clinical abortion will cost the NHS £270, whereas the use of RU486 will cost £182. I do not believe that four appointments at a hospital, four lots of treatment—involving taking RU486 and then taking prostaglandin, the second process in 15 per cent. of cases—will cost the NHS only £182.
Many more tests have been carried out in the United States than in the United Kingdom. The United States has banned the import of RU486. The Food and Drug Administration warned that the drug
could pose a risk to the safety of the user.
The FDA refused to license Opren. We did so, and are experiencing the consequences.
Recently, representatives of the Pro-Life medical committee, which advised a group of hon. Members, went to Germany and talked to Hoechst, the holding company for Roussel Uclaf, and asked whether it would seek to license RU486 in Germany. The company did not suggest that it would attempt to do so.
I recently had a debate at the Oxford Union with Professor Baird from Edinburgh university, who has carried out research into RU486. He claimed all sorts of wonderful side effects. I refer him and the House to Dr. John Seward of the American Medical Association Trust, who said that published conjecture that RU486 might be an effective treatment for a variety of illnesses was not based on any substantial test of the drug.
RU486 is certainly not a contraceptive. It does not do anything to treat cancer. It cuts progesterone and probably stimulates the growth of breast cancer. It is of use only for strangling and killing a child in the womb. It is useful only as an abortifacient. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say that it has only been licensed as such in the United Kingdom.
My major concern is the danger to women's health. In March this year, a woman died in Lens, in France, from taking RU486 followed by an injection of prostaglandin. The drug licensed in France is called Nallodor. There is evidence that two women in France had serious heart attacks as a consequence of taking it. It is clear that RU486 stimulates some types of breast cancer, although it is fair to say that it puts others into remission. We must seriously consider that factor.
It would be wrong of me not to examine the French experience of taking RU486. If I correctly read the notes attached to the licence, it is proposed to replicate in the United Kingdom the clinical usage in France. In France, there are four visits to the hospital or the clinic where the

drug is taken. On the first occasion, the blood count is taken. If the patient is anaemic or a heavy smoker, she is rejected. The child is examined by ultrasound. In France, the woman who is to take the drug signs an eight-page document, a waiver which absolves the manufacturer, Roussel Uclaf, from liability if the woman refuses to continue with the full treatment and goes on to have a deformed child.
The woman returns one week later and takes RU486. She returns a third time, 48 hours later. If the child has been aborted she has to bring the remains with her. If she does not return, she is fetched. If I read my hon. Friend's notes on the licence correctly, in Britain the patient will not be brought back—she will be lost in the community, irrespective of any medical complications that may arise.
In 75 to 85 per cent. of cases, RU486 works, but that leaves between 15 and 25 per cent. Those patients need to take prostaglandin. In the United Kingdom, that will be taken by way of vaginal suppository. In France, if the child is not aborted by late afternoon, the women is taken into theatre and a surgical abortion is carried out.
There is some dispute about how effective the drug is. Dr. Turchen of the United States says that the drug is only 90 per cent. effective, and that in 10 per cent. of cases surgical abortions will be required. Roussel objects to that and says that it is 95 per cent. effective. But its data depend on the duration of the pregnancy. The longer the pregnancy, the less effective is RU486 and the greater the number of failures.
We must also consider bleeding. Professor Baird at Edinburgh came to the conclusion that women could bleed for up to 44 days. The average is 13 days. In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine of a large number of women who took RU486, one in 1,000 needed a blood transfusion and, more importantly, one in 100 needed a surgical dilation and curettage to stop the bleeding. One can imagine what that involves. It has been described by Mr. Sakiz, chief executive of Roussel, as
an appalling psychological ordeal".
Roussel is using Britain as a springboard to the third world. If a woman is anaemic, or suffering from some other disease, and she bleeds for up to 13 days, where will she find a clinic or hospital in the outback of Zimbabwe or the uphills of Ethiopia to provide the necessary treatment? She will bleed to death. There will be many fatalities in certain parts of the world if the drug is licensed there. Those people look to us, and we shall carry the responsibility. They do not have the sophisticated licensing facilities that we have. They will follow our lead, and we shall be responsible if people die as a result.
Unlike a surgical abortion, the user of RU486 removes the remains of the child herself after the abortion. It is not like a clinical abortion where the foetus is removed under a general anaesthetic. The woman has to take part in the abortion. We cannot underestimate the long-term psychiatric effects, particularly when we consider the guilt that women may suffer, as has been shown in psychiatric research which proves that post-abortion syndrome is very much a reality. Professor Alan Templeton of the university of Aberdeen has found that women are distressed at the sight of their aborted babies. We should not underestimate the long-term psychiatric troubles that will come to many of these women as a result of post-abortion syndrome.
Most important of all are the deformities that may result if women start the process of taking RU486 and then change their minds and do not take prostaglandin, Their


children will be born with congenital abnormalities. Tests on rabbits have shown that the drug can give rise to a condition known as sirenomelia, in which the legs are fused together. There may also be effects on the skull and head. If such children are born here, they will not be the subject of signed waivers as they would be in France. Their relatives will sue the NHS, and out of its budget will have to flow the hundreds of thousands of pounds necessary to provide those children with the lifelong treatment that they will require.
We have seen the same happen after mothers have taken other types of drug. This means that money will not be spent on treating other people but will go to meet the needs of children whose deformities could have been avoided. The drug should be withdrawn now. Already an example of this syndrome has been noted in France. The child in question was so badly deformed that it was aborted after 19 weeks. Before this goes any further, it should be stopped, thereby preventing the vast costs to the people of this country that will ensue if it is not.
When a drug is approved in the United States, those involved in the Food and Drugs Administration produce a summary of their findings on the drug, detailing why it has been approved, for the public to see. All that happened here was an answer to a written parliamentary question and nothing more. We have been given no details of clinical research into the drug or into past-abortion syndrome occasioned by it. The United States has a much tougher regime and is more careful about licensing drugs. We need the same in this country in order to know where we stand.
We know too little about this drug, and it is too dangerous. The risks involved are too great. Now is the time to draw back and recognise that we should examine the matter further before British women are used as guinea pigs in trials of the drug.

Sir Bernard Braine: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on his tenacity during the past few weeks in persistently bringing this matter before the House, and now on successfully enabling what I am sure will turn out o be a major debate o take place.
I am sure that every hon. Member knows my views on abortion. Everybody also knows that, for a quarter of a century, I have fought unceasingly for the protection of the unborn child, the most defenceless of all members of the human family. However, during that time, nobody has ever heard me single out any abortion technique and demand its withdrawal. The reason for that is simple. I am concerned about the destruction of human life, not the means of bringing about that destruction.
However repugnant I feel abortion to be, the House made it legal, and some technique has to be used. Some techniques are quite revolting, but at least we know something about the long-term effects on the mother. RU486 is totally different. It is the first drug to be produced with the single aim of killing, and we have no idea whatever of its long-term effects on children in cases where the abortion fails or upon the women to whom the drug has been given.
One of the most worrying aspects of the matter is that the drug was supposedly examined and evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency, a body governed by the

Medicines Act passed as a result of the thalidomide tragedy, when Parliament and public opinion were unanimous that we should never allow such a disaster to happen again. But here we have a drug that was approved behind closed doors and of which the manufacturers have had to admit that they have no idea of the possible long-term effects.
How many hon. Members have noticed a singular lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the National Abortion Campaign, which since its inception has fought for abortion on demand up to birth? its supporters are not opposed to the principle of abortion, but they are quite categorical that the purpose of treatment is to benefit the woman. On that at any rate we can respect the views of people who say that in certain circumstances, abortion is justifiable.
Nobody knows what the long-term effects of RU486 might be on women. One would think that the fact that the manufacturers admit the possibility of sequelae which could be absolutely disastrous to those who were afflicted, would have encouraged the Medicines Control Agency and the Department of Health to proceed with caution. I very much regret that the Secretary of State for Health is not here to reply to the debate. If he were, he would be left in no doubt about how some of us feel about the way in which this matter has been managed.
Such has been the unseemly haste in giving approval that one might almost think that our Government, like the French Government, had 40 per cent. of the shares in the manufacturing company Roussel Uclaf or in its parent company, Hoechset. I hope that we shall be told that there is no such connection here as there was in France.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): indicated dissent.

Sir Bernard Braine: At least we have gained one admission right at the beginning of the debate.
Since Roussel Uclaf applied for a licence to market the drug in September, stories have been leaked to the press that the Department of Health was "fast tracking"—that is the term that was used—its progress to ensure that it would reach the marketplace with such speed that one would hardly notice its arrival.
On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) tabled a question asking the Minister how many drugs had received product licences in the United Kingdom in the last year, and how long each took to receive its licence. The answer is interesting: it showed that new drugs took 19 months, and that established drugs also took 19 months, unless referred to a committee established under the Medicines Act, in which case the period was 23 months. That is surprising, because the process took only 10 months in the case of RU486.
By the most remarkable of coincidences, the company just happened to have organised, for the second half of July and the beginning of August, a series of seminars to take place all over the country, to promote the use of the drug. As a former Minister in the Department of Health, I know that seminars take a great deal of organisation, requiring considerable advance planning. However, the company was able to send out letters to every gynaecologist in Britain, on the very day that the licence was issued, inviting them to seminars, the first of which was to take place within days of the letter being posted.
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister saw fit to inform the House. They both know that there is a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament that holds a watching brief in pro-life matters. They know, especially from the debates last year, that there is considerable interest in the subject on both sides of the House. But all this was done in secret. No sooner was the licence granted than the company moved. The seminars had been organised, and everything was ready to go ahead.
Such is the scenario that a fair-minded person would wonder whether the company could assume in advance that a licence would be issued. We insist on having a clear answer on whether the company was told this in advance. If we do not have the answer tonight, we must have it from the Secretary of State. If the answer is no, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to draw up new rules to ensure that there is no repetition of such indecent haste in introducing a drug that it known to be dangerous, and is banned in other countries such as the United States and Germany. We are being used as a guinea pig for the vaster markets in countries which have a policy of restricting population growth.
What is more, as the Secretary of State knows, the drug has long aroused deep suspicion in the minds of parliamentarians and leading medical authorities. We were finally informed that the licence had been issued only because of the persistent questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West. By the time that the question was answered, the licence had been issued. Such indecent haste demands an explanation, especially when one looks at the data sheet to examine the admissions that both the company and the licensing authority deigned to make.
As I have said, the Medicines Act was passed to ensure that never again would we experience another tragedy such as that caused by thalidomide, yet this drug was licensed behind closed doors, in record time, when, as we learn from the company's data sheet, it could result in the child being handicapped in the case of a failed abortion.
The data sheet says that, in such cases, the woman should be informed of the dangers, and it stresses that it is essential that the termination is carried out by another method. The manufacturers do not explain just how dreadful these abnormalities might be. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West has said that rabbits treated with RU486 developed sirenomelia—in plain English. mermaid syndrome—where the child's legs are fused together, quite apart from other gross deformities of the organs.
Let us be clear about this grave matter. Let us weigh carefully what the Department of Health has done. It may be said that the Department proceeded to license the drug in a fit of absent-mindedness, but I do not believe that for a moment.
We know that, in France, at least one baby exposed to RU486 was aborted at 19 weeks because its legs were fused. Its mother had changed her mind about having an abortion, but then the child developed such horrendous abnormalities that she clearly felt compelled to end the pregnancy. I use the phrase "at least one baby" advisedly. The case was cloaked in such secrecy that, when the story leaked out from the hospital, it took months for any real

details to filter through. We have no idea whether information about similar cases has been successfully suppressed or not.
We need to know exactly what independent investigations, if any, were carried out by the Department of Health before it granted the licence. Both the manufacturers and the licensing authority have left unsaid things that most people would consider they ought to have said in explaining the possible handicaps that children who survived exposure to the drug might develop. They have also failed to make any reference to other abnormalities that could be just as dangerous, or even more so, since they could be passed down from generation to generation.
I should explain that I have been advised on such matters for some years by a committee whose membership includes some of the most distinguished medical figures not only in this country but in the world. RU486 is not dissimilar to another drug—DES, or diethylstilboelstrol —which was originally produced with the laudable aim of preventing miscarriage. In this country, it was given to some 10,000 pregnant women between 1940 and 1970.
Apart from the fact that it was not effective in preventing spontaneous abortion, the drug was finally withdrawn from the market when it was discovered that teenage girls who had been exposed to it in utero had developed cancer of the vagina. It was also discovered that 25 per cent. of males and 40 per cent. of females who had been exposed to it had developed abnormalities of the reproductive tract, none of which had been apparent at birth.
As if that were not tragic enough, it has been discovered in the past few years that the third generation may also have been affected. People who had been exposed to the drug in utero, but were apparently normal, have now produced children with urinogenital tract deformities, or children who have developed cancer in their teens or twenties. As a distinguished embryologist told me recently, the chemical time bomb ticks on; we can have no idea whether a fourth generation will be affected, or how.
Having considered the children who may be affected by RU486, let me now turn to women who, in their dilemma, may now be subjected to it. Admittedly, the manufacturers warn that women taking the drug could have heart attacks. At least one unfortunate patient has died in France from a heart attack, and at least two more have suffered severe cardiac trauma. The manufacturers have persistently stated that the drug should never be used in cases of ectopic pregnancy; that is also one of the contra-indications of the licence.
When a woman is being considered for an abortion by RU486, it should be mandatory for her to be given a scan to confirm an intra-uterine pregnancy; otherwise, her life will be in danger. As a number of our medical advisers—including gynaecologists—have pointed out, a woman suffering from pain and bleeding after taking the drug might well believe that the symptoms were related to her abortion, rather than being the early signs of a rupturing ectopic pregnancy, which could be fatal.
In this connection, it is of supreme importance to note that ectopic pregnancies have increased. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that they have increased and are a significant cause of maternal deaths, yet nowhere in the Department of Health circulars on the subject of RU486 is scanning considered to be mandatory.


We consider that to be absolutely scandalous. I hope therefore that we shall hear that there are plans to rectify that omission quickly. I require a precise answer to that.
I have been an opponent of abortion for a quarter of a century, but this is the first time that I have ever called for the withdrawal of a drug or for the banning of a technique to terminate a pregnancy. I do so now for one reason only. Far from being a simple, easy, new method of abortion, this drug, introduced by ministerial decree, is potentially very hazardous, and there has been almost no independent research on it.
I call upon the Secretary of State for Health to withdraw the licence and to order a proper scientific and wholly independent investigation that is not financed by the manufacturers. I should have preferred to say that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I expected him to be here, since this is the most important subject that we have debated today. It relates not only to the health of women but to our children's futures. The Department is represented by the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he has been fully briefed on the subject, for he will have to answer a great many questions. I hope too that he will pass on the message that I should have preferred to see my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench.
It will take great courage by my right hon. Friend to withdraw the licence, but for him to admit the possible dangers and to do what, in the circumstances, is right will enhance, not weaken, his reputation.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I intervene early in the debate because a number of Conservative Members want to speak. If I do not do so now, I may be squeezed out.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and my old adversary, if I may so describe him, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, have spoken against RU486. The right hon. Member for Castle Point made his usual somewhat exaggerated condemnation of this very important development. Both of them—and doubtless those hon. Members who will speak later in the debate—are obsessed anti-abortionists. They have made a number of very misleading statements and—I was going to say half-truths, but I do not want to be ruled out of order.

Mr. Hind: indicated dissent.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West shakes his head. I want to try to put the record straight.
I am glad that the Government have decided, after the most rigorous checks, to grant a product licence. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will explain those checks. It is unusual for the Under-Secretary and me to be on the same side, but in this case I fully support the Government's licensing of this product.
We believe that RU486 is a step forward. It is the culmination of a research programme that was initiated in 1975 by Roussel. In 1982, the first clinical trials were carried out in Switzerland, since when it has been used by more than 100,000 women in more than 20 countries. In France, about which so much has been said, it was introduced in January 1989 as an integrated part of the women's health care programme. More than 90,000 RU486-induced trimester abortions have taken place.
A large-scale British multicentre trial of RU486 began in 1987 with the recruitment of volunteers from 13 NHS hospital gynaecological units in Scotland and England. The findings, which were published in 1990, confirmed the effectiveness of the sequential use of oral mifespristone and vaginal prostaglandins in inducing pregnancy up to the 63rd day of the pregnancy. That is the limit to which it can be used.
British-based Roussel Laboratories applied to the Department of Health for a product licence in September 1990. It was granted on 1 July 1991, nine months later—that magical figure of nine months.
Roussel Laboratories is running a series of seminars—the right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the seminars; I presume that he means the same thing—in Leeds, Bristol, Nottingham, Glasgow and London to ensure that gynaecologists are familiar with the drug before it becomes available. It is doing so under conditions of the tightest possible control within the NHS and in other places approved by the amended Abortion Act 1967.
RU486 is not a morning-after pill, as so many people have said in the run-up to the debate; it is an abortifacient. It will be available under the terms of the 1967 Act. Its use will be confined to approved places and, as with other methods of abortion, will require the agreement of two doctors who will have to give their signature in good faith. It is not abortion on request. A leader in the Daily Telegraph today—other hon. Members doubtless will refer to it—said that it is, but it should get its facts right.
Despite what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said, no deaths have been recorded that were attributable to RU486, and more than 100,000 women have used it since 1982. One woman died in France earlier this year during the course of a medically induced abortion shortly after receiving an injection of sulprostone, which is an injectable form of prostaglandins. She was an exceptional case. She had had 12 previous pregnancies and was a heavy smoker. In this country, the injectable form is not used. The prostaglandins analogue is given in pessary form.
RU486 is now in its 10th year of clinical use.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: rose—

Ms. Richardson: I do not propose to give way, as there is so little time for this debate.
There is no evidence of any long-term health risk. We have heard many scare stories this evening, but we should stick to the facts. The drug is taken as a single dose, perhaps once in a woman's lifetime. It goes through the metabolism quickly and is eliminated quickly from the body. Nothing could be simpler and safer than that.
Women in this country can obtain legal abortion despite the vigorous attempts by some hon. Members to close that option. We have never debated what methods of abortion should be legal—should women be entitled only to vacuum aspiration abortions, or would D and Cs be the most appropriate? It is right that we have not debated that, because we need to leave the decision on the safest and most appropriate method to doctors and women to decide between them case by case.
I welcome the product licence for RU486 in Britain, because it extends the choice to women and to doctors. It has proved safe in clinical trials, despite what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West has said, and I believe that many women will prefer it. Of course it is not without risk—no drug is. Conventional methods of abortion are not


without risk either, but they are all safer than a pregnancy which carries quite a lot of risk, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise.
In 1988, Roussel announced in France that the distribution of RU486 would be suspended. We now know that that was as a result of pressure and threats from the anti-choice movement against both Roussel and its parent company Hoechst, which is based in Germany and in the United States. It is to the very great credit of the French Government that they responded with the now famous phrase:
RU486 is the moral property of women.
More than 100,000 French women are very grateful.
I am delighted that the forces of ignorance and fear have not been successful in Britain either and that Roussel has been granted its licence. RU486 is not a wonder drug. There will always be some women who prefer an abortion under an anaesthetic. Although I would like abortions to be carried out as early as possible, I recognise that some second trimester abortions are necessary. RU486 is not available for use in later abortions; it is simply for the first three months.
RU486 has the potential to improve national health service abortion facilities, which are currently inadequate and have too great a regional variation. The drug has the potential to cut delay because the woman does not need to be scheduled for surgery and because the prostaglandins which accompany RU486 can be administered on the ward.
The drug will save theatre time and theatre staff. It will save the surgeon's time. It will save anaesthetists, theatre nurses and anaesthetic nurses. It will save porters, equipment and anaesthetic agents. I hope that that considerable saving of resources and the freeing of resources will be redirected into providing a comprehensive national health service for abortion, with less delay for women. I have heard some Conservative Members talk at length in previous debates about the difficulties. I accept that delays cause great problems for women.
Here we have something that is safe, or it would not have been licensed. It has been properly tested, or it would not have been licensed. Yet those hon. Members resist the drug because of their obsession with their anti-abortion feelings. Far too many women are forced out of the NHS and have to go privately because the NHS is not good enough. I want the NHS to become good enough. I believe that RU486 will liberate a number of women.
I support self-referral for abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. I realise that that view is not shared by everyone. That practice would ease NHS delays and, for the first time, would give women rights to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy. That would be in line with public opinion, as a recent Harris poll showed that 81 per cent. of adults support that proposal. In that context, RU486 would mean that women who wanted abortions could get them very quickly.
Do not let us be deflected from making progress along this difficult and sometimes muddled path by the scare stories and the myths that are constantly put about by those who are anti-abortion anyway. Whatever the developments in the next decade, those anti-abortionists will be there to argue that such developments are unsafe and unwelcome. I believe that they will be wrong, as they have been in the past.
On this occasion, the anti-abortionists are using the potential benefits of RU486 to so many women to throw a cloak over their real intention of outlawing abortion altogether. The right hon. Member for Castle Point admitted that he was anti-abortion. I am sure that hon. Members will not be deluded by the comments of the anti-abortionists. Hon. Members have not been so deluded in the past, when they voted decisively for the improvements to the Abortion Act 1967.
It is not often that I agree with the Government, but I welcome their decision to grant the product licence. I am sure that women will also welcome that decision and the additional choice that RU486 will bring.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall try to be brief, because I know that many hon. Members who are against the product licence want to talk about this important issue.
It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) for introducing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) as we always seem to be totally opposed. The hon. Lady has said that, in her opinion, the drug is perfectly safe for the women of this country to use. In 10 years' time I hope that the hon. Lady will not have to eat those words, which are now on record. The hon. Lady believes that the drug is safe—I do not, and I believe that the medical evidence will prove me right.
I am amazed that the drug has been licensed in such record time, almost with unseemly haste. All the excellent pharmaceutical companies associated with my constituency—ICI, Wellcome, Fisons and Ciba-Geigy—would love to know the magic formula to put the product licences that they want on the fast track for acceptance. What do they have to do to make that happen? The House should consider the speed with which the licence has been granted.
Tonight we have the opportunity to register our concerns. The hon. Member for Barking made great play of the fact that Conservative Members are opposed to abortion. I am opposed to social abortion. It is regrettable that in this day and age, with better education, better living standards, and free contraception through the national health service, the lives of unborn children are taken away merely because they happen to be a social inconvenience. Rather than discussing women's rights, I wish that hon. Members would say more about their responsibilities and, for that matter, about men's responsibilities for the children that they father.
Initially, family planning was introduced to plan families, not to destroy life. So-called family planning has been abused and there is abortion on demand in this country. We have the most liberal abortion laws in Europe and I am thoroughly ashamed of them.
The drug has been marketed very cleverly as a wonder drug—a morning-after pill—which is easy to take and will solve the dilemma of young women who find themselves pregnant and want to do something about the matter. The drug has been promoted as a cheap alternative to surgical abortion. I was dismayed to hear the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) advocate that it was so good and cheap and would save surgeons' time. She was really advocating the cheapest possible method of ensuring that


women have abortions. That is an insult to women and I am appalled to have heard those words spoken in this House.
RU486 will not be cheap. It has been promoted on the ground, for example, that it will save the national health service between £15 million and £23 million. Why has the Birth Control Trust, which actively promotes the drug, subsequently revised the figure down from £15 million to zero? I suggest that it is because there must be at least three appointments with the doctor who will prescribe the drug. At the beginning there will be no scan, which would immediately put up the cost. I believe that a scan is essential. Neither is there a costing of the pathological assessment for anaemia and other illnesses. Furthermore, the costs of the drug itself, the prostagladins and the surgical abortion when the drug fails in its purpose have not been taken into account. There are hidden long-term costs of treatment for, for example, post-abortion syndrome, the possible cancers that the women may develop in the long term and the cost of a child who is damaged if a woman has a change of heart halfway through the treatment.
The licensing of the drug shows a cavalier attituded towards women's health, and ignores the possible long-term damage, both psychological and physical which may be inflicted. There is no doubt that insufficient independent research has been done on the long-term effects. Most countries have rejected the drug, and it is licensed for use only in France and Britain. France has a vested interest because the drug was developed there, and at that time the French Government had a 40 per cent. holding in the company, but Roussel needs the United Kingdom licence to promote and market the drug elsewhere and to give it credibility. Women in this country are therefore to be used as guinea pigs to help market the drug. People reject research on animals—yet this drug involves research on women, and the Government are backing it and introducing it as fast as they can.
We must get the message across to women that, due to insufficient research, no one knows whether the use of the drug will cause cancers in the future. No one can predict the side effects that patients may experience. Opren was introduced and licensed and, in the majority of cases, it did what it was claimed that it would do—but in a minority of cases it reacted adversely, ruining the lives of several of my constituents. So an example already exists.
It cannot be predicted whether the woman will abort quickly or easily, or whether she will suffer much pain alone and unsupervised when the abortion takes place. She may—more often than not, she does—suffer considerable bleeding. On top of that, the drug may not work—if it is not administered early on, the maker's claim for a failure rate of only 5 per cent. does not apply. If the pregnancy runs to 63 days, as it will be allowed to in the United Kingdom, the failure rate rises steeply to 20 per cent., so 20 per cent. of cases could be presented for surgical abortions, thus increasing the cost.
I am possibly the only woman who has had children to speak in the debate, other than the hon. Member for Barking. At the beginning of pregnancy, most women have ambivalent feelings about the baby. A young, unmarried woman who finds herself pregnant and is horrified at the prospect may go to her local doctor or to one of the clinics advertised on the tube for what is commonly known as counselling, which is absolutely worthless because it is not

independent. There will, however, be some discussion of the woman's dilemma, and she may then decide to have a medical termination.
The woman will go to a doctor to be given RU486, be told to go home, and to return in 48 hours. In that time, she may change her mind and decide not to return for the prostaglandin. What will happen then? It is perfectly true that the baby that she is carrying will most likely be severely damaged by the RU486 that she has already taken. In addition to the physical damage done to the women, she may suffer psychological damage. Post-abortion syndrome is well chronicled and recognised by the medical establishment, but there will be additional trauma for a woman who undergoes a medical termination and has to deal with the products of her conception and then return with that to her doctor.
If a woman has a surgical abortion, at least it is quick. She is admitted to hospital, is given an anaesthetic and does not see the baby, and the trauma is kept to a minimum. The same is not true of a medical termination, when she may be left alone and totally unsupervised for a considerable time. How on earth is she supposed to cope with that while working or carrying on her normal life? It seems quite intolerable.
I do not know why the information that my hon. Friend the Minister has laid down for general practitioners does not state that a scan is essential before the treatment is administered. No young woman keeps the date of her last period regularly, which is the only way to work out by how many weeks she is pregnant. Unless a scan is undertaken to ensure that the baby is not more than nine weeks and that there is no ectopic pregnancy—which can kill the woman—it is disgraceful to allow the drug to be administered.
The hon. Minister for Barking spoke of the rigorous checks made by the committee which licensed the drug and the way in which it was introduced in France, where restrictions were put on its use. Is she happy that in France people who smoke heavily, whatever that may mean, or have a heart condition will not be allowed to have that drug, but that in this country no such restrictions are placed on its use? It seems appalling that women in this country should be allowed to take the drug without meeting the conditions that apply elsewhere.
I genuinely believe that the drug is being introduced at far too great a pace. We need much more independent research. Despite the fact that, as was said by the hon. Member for Barking, I do not believe in social abortion, I am concerned about the long-term health of women, I believe that we shall rue the day that RU486 was introduced into this country.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on being called at a comparatively reasonable hour, but I find it difficult to agree with him, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), or with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), all of whom expressed concern about women's health and said that RU486 should be withdrawn because it is not safe. I suspect, however, that they feel that drug will make abortion too easy, and that they want RU486 to be withdrawn because they oppose abortion.
I am surprised that lay persons should so question the work of the Medicines Control Agency, which is held in the highest regard and undertook proper testing. The drug has been available for some 10 years, so I do not accept that it has been on any fast track. My right hon. and hon. Friends want its more widespread use delayed because they oppose abortion—not because they are really interested in the woman's point of view.
I found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton when she spoke of the need for parental responsibility. No one wants abortions in the first place. Surveys in this country have shown that 1 million women are at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and that in the course of a year one third of them become pregnant. More than one half of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion, and the remainder in the birth of a child that was not planned. No doubt some of those children are unwanted.

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend says that such children are unwanted, but that is not so. Many childless couples in this country would love to adopt them. Surely it is much better to do the honourable thing and to give birth to one's child, even if one cannot bring it up oneself.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend knows that few children are given up for adoption. I am sure that people do not want to see children born who are not wanted in the first place, and who might then become the victims of abuse.
There needs to be more and better family planning, and improved sex education in our schools—and that should begin at an even earlier age than now. We are all aware of the phenomenon of gymslip mothers. Only the other day, The Sun published a picture of a 14-year-old mother of two children. It seems as though sex education ought to be introduced in our primary schools, if we are to bring home to children what are the real choices in this world.
It seems to me that RU486 is a safe drug and that its use ought to be considered on that ground and not rejected. The drug's provision by the health service ought to be considered in the light of today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a citizens charter. On the subject of the principles of public service and choice, it states on page 5 of the charter:
The public sector should provide choice wherever practicable. The people affected by services should be consulted. Their views about the services they use should be sought regularly and systematically to inform decisions about what services should be provided.
It follows that women ought to be given the choice of using a drug that I am satisfied is safe. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is so, and that RU486 should be made available to women under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967—that is, when two doctors agree that it should be used.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on initiating this debate, but I wish that it had been held before RU486 was licensed. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in her place, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), because I know that he, too, has strong feelings on this matter.
I was appalled by the speech of hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I do not know why anyone who regards life so cheaply should serve as a Member of Parliament. She spoke about life in a way that I found deeply offensive.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on initiating the citizens charter today, and I hope that as it develops we shall learn what price is placed on the unborn citizen.
Like an increasing number of my colleagues, I am appalled at the manner in which the Medicines Control Agency is allowed to reach its decisions on drugs behind closed doors. I am well aware that much of the material must remain confidential because of pirating, but the United States Food and Drug Administration is required to publish the summary basis for approval, which any member of the public, not to mention parliamentarians, can scrutinise.
I call on the Government to withdraw the licence allowing the marketing of Mifeggne until it has undergone substantial independent clinical trials, rather than allowing the women of this country to be used as guinea pigs. I and other colleagues intend to campaign for a change in the law to make it mandatory for the Medicines Control Agency to publish the summary basis of approval each time it licences a drug, and for that summary to be available for public scrutiny.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With the leave of the House, I should like to contribute a few words to the debate.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was perhaps ill advised to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), as the argument about RU486 is far more complicated than he suggests. Four years ago—I remind the House that my maiden speech was on abortion and that I have always been in the life lobby in the House—I addressed a conference of about 2,000 people in Central hall, Westminster. I believe that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was there. I told him then, and all the others who were present, that I believed that the drug would divide the life lobby.
The drug raises a huge principle, and it was one that the right hon. Member for Castle Point and I had to examine in the debate in which we were involved. If we are devoted to ending the practice of late abortion but recognise that there are millions of women who, however much we object, will demand abortion, we must find a way around the dilemma that they as women face. The principle of a morning-after pill, while it may be unpalatable to many in our lobby, may to some extent appease our consciences. I know that that is not the purists' position, but we must deal in the world of reality.
I understand the concern about the placing on the market of a drug which seems to me to be untested, and I understand also that much evidence has been produced in the debate to suggest that that is the position. We should be careful, however, about how we deploy our arguments. There is an argument for delay, but in the longer term this drug—or one of this nature—may well resolve the great dilemma confronting the right hon. Member for Castle Point and me, and all in this place who are part of the great life movement of which he is a member.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): It is common ground among all those who have participated in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has raised a major issue by talking about the licensing of RU486. I regret that my presence in the place of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been interpreted by some as signifying a downgrading of the importance that the Government attach to the drug. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the House in general that that would not be a correct interpretation of the view of the Government or of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is no argument about the importance of the issues that are raised by the licensing of the drug.
I shall begin my substantive reply by briefly sketching the background against which I approach the problem. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we are talking in any sense about a morning-after pill. We are discussing a method of abortion. As it should be seen clearly as an abortion method, its use must be governed by the provisions of abortion legislation, and principally the Abortion Act.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is licensing the drug only for use in conditions that are clearly set out in law—that is to say, that the prospect of an abortion must be agreed to by two doctors. It must be on defined grounds within the terms of the Act, it must be in licensed establishments—there is no question of it being available for use in unlicensed establishments by general practitioners—and it will be available for use only where a pregnancy has run for a maximum of nine weeks.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: How does my hon. Friend intend the length of pregnancy to be confirmed, unless a scan is carried out? Will he give an assurance that a scan will be carried out on every woman before the drug is administered?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend earlier asked me to answer that specific question, and I shall do so now. If a clinician is to use RU486, the conditions of the licence require him to be satisfied that the pregnancy has not run for more than nine weeks. In those circumstances, the clinician may be satisfied by the woman giving details of her normal menstrual cycle. However, if the woman does not know the details with sufficient accuracy, clearly the clinician would have to satisfy himself by some other means that the conditions of the licence were being fulfilled. The conditions are clear and unambiguous, and the drug is licensed for use only for abortions before the expiry of nine weeks of pregnancy.
In the Government's view, the drug is an alternative method of carrying out an abortion, and we leave the choice of the method principally in the hands of the clinician, although, as with all clinical choices, the clinician will use the discretion vested in him in consultation with the patient. I emphasise that we do not envisage the use of RU486 as a cost-saving exercise. Even if we did, it would be arguable whether it would be an effective cost-saving approach.
I wish to distance myself from one of the comments of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), although I was grateful for her support on some matters. There is

certainly no commitment by the Government that any savings that did accrue from the use of RU486 would be made available to increase the availability of NHS abortions. That is a matter to be decided by individual district health authorities against the background of their own choices and decisions about health priorities in their districts.
In considering whether a clinician should use that method of abortion or any other, the primary concern must be the welfare of the patient. One of the considerations that was not given as much weight by some of my hon. Friends as I had anticipated is the relative risks for the woman of an abortion by taking a drug or an abortion requiring general anaesthesia. Neither routine is risk-free, but it is a legitimate exercise of clinical judgment to make the choice between those two methods of carrying out the legal act of procuring an abortion.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: My hon. Friend referred to the clinical welfare of the woman. As has been said, some 588 cases were reviewed. Is my hon. Friend aware that 37 of those women required surgical evacuation as a result of taking the drug?

Mr. Dorrell: I cannot confirm that statistic, but it is true that, if a woman changes her mind halfway through the course of treatment with RU486, or if its use is found to be ineffective, the guidance from the manufacturer is that there is an appreciable risk of a foetal deformity and that an alternative method of abortion should be considered. That is clearly stated as part of the supporting literature on the licensing of the drug.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has just made an important statement. Is he saying that weight is given to what the manufacturers say? Has my hon. Friend grasped the main point—which has been made by all Conservative Members who have spoken, save one—that independent research is needed before we are committed to a method that is largely, if not wholly, unproven?

Mr. Dorrell: If I may, I shall come later to my right hon. Friend's point about independent research. I was trying to establish common ground between Health Ministers as the licensing authorities and those who are worried about the use of the drug. If an abortion is not completed as a result of the drug being administered, there is acknowledged to be a risk of foetal deformity, which must lead the clinician and the woman to consider what further steps should be taken to complete what I emphasise is a legal abortion routine.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and many of my hon. Friends fundamentally disapprove of the procurement of the abortion in the first place, but if the law allows the woman and the clinician to contemplate that action, and the initial steps taken in using the drug were ineffective but rendered the foetus liable to deformity, it is clearly legitimate for them to consider alternative ways of bringing the contemplated abortion to a successful conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said that there had been insufficient research into the drug. In responding to that point, I shall answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about independent assessment of the evidence used in the licensing process. Under the licensing system, it is for the applicant in the case of any drug to substantiate the


application against the tests of safety, efficacy and quality that are laid down in statute. It is not for the taxpayer but for the drug company to pay for research into a new drug and to demonstrate to the Independent Licensing Authority—the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency, giving advice to Ministers—that the proposed new drug passes those tests.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point correctly pointed out, that was the system set up as a result of earlier failures of medicines licensing. That system, seeking to learn the lessons of those earlier failures, gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unambiguous advice that this drug should be licensed for the purpose, and on the condition, set out in the licence.
I assure the House that there was no fast-tracking of the application; it was considered according to the normal processes laid down in statute and it passed the tests, set out by Parliament, of safety, efficacy and quality.

Sir Bernard Braine: Did the Government inquire into why the drug is banned in the United States and Germany, two highly civilised countries with established medical professions, from whose ranks have come some of the greatest medical scientists in the world?

Mr. Dorrell: No, the Government did not inquire into that, because, if we had done so, we would have been acting outside the Medicines Act. Parliament sets out the test that a new medicine must pass in order to secure a licence.

Sir Bernard Braine: Why not come to Parliament in the first place?

Mr. Dorrell: The Medicines Act sets out the tests of efficacy, quality and safety which the producers of a new drug must pass.
My right hon. Friend asked me whether the company had had notice of the issuing of the licence. I am advised that the company had no such notice. The seminars, which my right hon. Friend correctly said would have been prepared before the licence, were organised by the company at its own risk.
My right hon. Friend also asked me about the investigation of mermaid syndrome, and I will, if I may, write to him on that.

Mr. Hind: Was any research carried out by Roussel Uclaf and submitted to the Medicines Control Agency on post-abortion syndrome?

Mr. Dorrell: The information that is tendered by a company to the MCA is, as my hon. Friend knows—not least because my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has responded to him on the specific point during parliamentary questions—confidential within the MCA and the published information on the drug, as was also referred to during parliamentary questions, appeared in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and in the New England Journal of Medicine, both of them containing scientific papers on the background to the drug.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) asked about the supervision of a woman, particularly if she changed her mind or if there were problems associated with the use of the drug. It is clearly true, and unavoidable, that, with a drug which involves the use of several stages some days apart, there is the risk that the woman will change her mind during the course of the treatment. I have already acknowledged that a half-completed use of the drug leads to a risk of foetal abnormality, and I have dealt with the consequences that flow from that.
The guidance that has been issued makes it clear that, if an abortion has not occurred in the expected time and if the patient leaves the treatment centre, she must be given a specific contact name and told where to go in the event of any problems. A follow-up visit must always take place within eight to 12 days after the administering of the drug to verify that the abortion has been completed and that vaginal bleeding has stopped or substantially reduced. Persistence of moderate vaginal bleeding at that point or later could signify an incomplete abortion, and appropriate investigation and treatment would therefore have to be considered.
But we must remember that it is always true that any treatment of this nature is voluntary. We have no power, nor should we have, to compel a woman to return. We should make it as easy as possible and stress to her the clinical need for her to ensure that such signs are followed up in her own interests.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International

Mr. Keith Vaz: No one would have anticipated that the closure of a bank would result in riots, disorder, or such anxiety, anguish and public concern as followed the decision that fateful Friday 5 July to close down the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. But this is the stuff of which fictional best sellers are made. We have all heard of the bank that likes to say yes. This is the bank that refuses to die. It is a story straight out of the Arabian Nights—of a bank, a sheikh, a governor, a political crisis and a Prime Minister who claims to have known nothing.
Every day and every hour, there seems to be some development or some new information about BCCI which occupies the top of our political agenda. It has dwarfed all other issues and events. It therefore seems remarkable that the Government refuse to give parliamentary time for a full debate, although we have had two statements, one private notice question and the announcement of a public inquiry as well as debating amendments to the Finance Bill last week. I welcome this debate and I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to form the action committee on BCCI, especially the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles).
In the past few days I have had meetings with thousands of depositors and members of staff. They are in a time warp. It is like talking to victims of some terrible disaster. They are worried, perplexed and anxious. Many have lost their life savings, and many will be ruined. The reputations of some business people with even the most tenous connections have been put at risk. For the staff —12,000 of them worldwide—the situation is bleak indeed. They have lost jobs and deposits and they are at risk in the employment market because they have to some extent been ridiculed for working for an organisation that has been so bitterly attacked.
Those who have acted improperly ought to be brought to justice, but there have been no arrests or detentions and no prosecutions. We should like to know when they will start.
What action is being taken to support initiatives to help members of staff to keep their jobs? What arrangements can be made to help members of staff to clear their names? It would be ungracious not to welcome the establishment of the committee of inquiry announced by the Chancellor on Friday, but will the Minister explain why the Governor of the Bank of England told Members at 8 pm on Thursday that he did not favour an inquiry as it was not in the interests of depositors or the liquidator, but by Friday lunchtime had changed his mind? What persuaded him to do that?
Did the Governor meet the Chancellor before the two occasions that I have mentioned? The Prime Minister today announced the chairman of the team of inquiry, Lord Justice Bingham. Will the Minister confirm that the commission of inquiry will have full judicial authority, including the right to subpoena and examine all accounts and transactions of all BCCI banks and related activities throughout the world? The commission should also have full access to all information from Ministries, Depts and

regulatory authorities, and the right to decide issues of compensation, the period for compensation, and any appeal procedures.
Will the Minister accept that the commission's main responsibility will be to undertake a thorough examination of all the events leading to the Bank of England's decision to close down the BCCI's operations and to assess whether the Bank of England examined all possible options to contain the situation? Will the commission of inquiry undertake an analysis of the economic and social consequences of BCCI's closure both in the United Kingdom and throughout the world? Will it be able to propose essential reforms, including reforms of the Bank of England and the other authorities? Will it be able clearly to identify the criminal and civil responsibilities of all concerned, including the auditors? Finally, will the commission be able to give us an interim report so that any findings can be the subject of parliamentary debate or legislation?
I pay tribute to the frankness of the Governor of the Bank of England, who I believe will eventually become the unfortunate scapegoat for the whole problem. In the two meetings that he has held with hon. Members, on Wednesday 10 July and on Thursday 18 July, to which he readily agreed and at which he was unfailingly courteous and frank, he gave us details and answered questions about events. However, if there has been a failure to regulate, no matter how nice and courteous the Governor may be, he must take full responsibility. He knew the seriousness of the situation. That is why he went to Downing street on 28 June to give the news of the proposed closure. We are entitled to know whether the bank, as the watchdog, had carried out its duty adequately —not whether it acted too early or too late, but whether it acted properly. The same considerations apply to Ministers.
The Bank of England has certain statutory responsibilities, and while the rest of us can raise rumours and other points of concern, the bank has the power to act. For example, did the Governor know about BCCI's alleged terrorist links? What action was taken after the two Price Waterhouse reports in March and October 1990? We know from our meeting with the deputy Governor on 10 July that 10 special reports were commissioned by the Bank of England, ending with the report of 25 June.
Does the Minister unequivocally endorse the role of the Bank of England? Is there nothing that it did or failed to do which causes the Government concern? The Chancellor said in his statement on Friday:
I have no reason to doubt that the Bank acted properly and promptly in the best interests of the depositors."— [Official Report, 19 July, 1991; Vol. 195, c. 716.]
Does the Minister agree?
It is also important to know when Ministers and Treasury officials knew, and what action was taken. Last year, in a debate in another place, the noble Lord Henley said:
Treasury officials have been in touch with the Bank of England to emphasise to it the degree of public concern about the case, not least that expressed by noble Lords, and to ask it to take full account of the concern in its continued supervision of BCCI. The Bank of England has confirmed that it is doing this and will continue to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 April 1990; Vol. 518, c. 421.]
What action did the Treasury take to ensure that the situation was being monitored? When the Price Waterhouse report was received in October 1990, the


Governor told us that it did not contain any fraud or anything to warrant the action now being taken. Does the Minister agree?
Yesterday in the House, there was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. On Thursday, I chaired two cross-party meetings. At the meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England, the Governor clearly stated when pressed by two colleagues that he always kept the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully informed of all major developments. He said that it was his job to do so, but that he could not divulge the nature of the conversations.
That course of action was confirmed in a written reply to me this evening from the Minister. I asked the Chancellor to list the dates on which we had discussed the trading position or other matters relating to BCCI with the Governor of the Bank of England in the past two years. The Minister replied that the Chancellor had discussed a number of supervisory cases, including BCCI, with the Governors of the Bank of England on a number of occasions since becoming Chancellor, but was not aware until 26 June that fraud had been uncovered.
Clearly the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, had similar meetings with the Governor. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister was not informed of the circumstances of BCCI. BCCI was going through the most important development of the time, which resulted in the resignation of the president and chief executive of the bank, and a major reconstruction of the bank was taking place. At that time of hostilities in the Gulf, the Chancellor would have wanted to have that information and to act on it in defence of the leader of a friendly Gulf state. The Prime Minister must return to the House and make a statement about his true knowledge of events. He cannot keep hiding behind the old lady's skirts.
I accept that the Prime Minister did not know about the fraud until 28 June, but he has been reticent about telling the House what else he knew. The final report from Price Waterhouse arrived on 25 June. By 26 June, the gist of the report had been given to a Treasury official, John Geeve. On 28 June, a special meeting was held at Downing street, which was attended by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and both were informed of what was to be done. There is then an extraordinary seven-day gap, in which there was no political or diplomatic initiative.
It is beyond belief that the Prime Minister, who a few months ago had been fighting on the same side as the sheikh, could not even pick up a telephone or send an official to visit the sheikh to see what could be done to save the bank. That crucial gap, that seven-day silence, has still not been explained. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor must have known the consequences, both financial and political, of that gap. They had a duty to act. The shiekh makes it clear that, had he been asked, he would have provided financial support to save the bank, but no approach was made.

Mr. Tim Smith: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, anyone would think that the head office of BCCI was regulated by the Bank of England. It was not —it was regulated by the Luxembourg authorities. As we know, the bank operated in a large number of different countries. Is not the reason why there was some delay once the Bank of England had decided to act in the United

Kingdom the fact that it had to communicate with all the regulators so as to ensure that there was concerted action throughout the world?

Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman will find out from my speech, negotiations were taking place and the College of Regulators was already fully informed of what was being proposed.
BCCI Holdings is a member of a substantial group of companies which carried on a banking business in over 60 countries, where it had more than 1.25 million depositors and approximately 12,000 staff. his Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan an-Nahayan has always maintained that he was more than prepared to co-operate with any scheme and any initiative by the Bank of England to maintain BCCI. Can the Minister confirm that he has no information which casts any doubt on that statement? Last Thursday, the sheikh went to the trouble of taking out full-page advertisements in national newspapers citing his outrage at what had happened. The statement speaks of his shock at the abrupt action taken by the Bank of England, without any consultation with either the shareholders or the central bank of the United Arab Emirates.
The sheikh, as the majority shareholder, was well aware of the troubles in the bank, and he tried to implement new measures. Their implementation involved close cooperation and consultation with the Bank of England and other members of the College of Regulators. As the investigations were pursued, further losses and certain irregularities were uncovered. These were reported on a regular basis to the College of Regulators to keep it informed of the developing situation.
In the light of those discoveries, Price Waterhouse was instructed by the sheikh to prepare a refinancing and restructuring plan designed to reorganise the group on a sound footing. A first draft of this plan was presented to the College of Regulators in October 1990. Members of the college, and the Bank of England, made it clear that they welcomed and were willing to co-operate fully in implementing the proposals for restructuring on the basis that this would best safeguard the interests of the group, depositors, shareholders and staff, and avoid the other alternative. The other alternative was liquidation, which, it was recognised by all concerned, would have catastrophic effects, given the size and extent of the group's liabilities.
In a letter to the department of finance dated 11 April 1991, the Bank of England stated:
The college did form the view that the proposed overall framework of the new structure appears to acceptable basis for restructuring … All the relevant supervisors stand ready to engage in the necessary dialogue in the near future.
On 5 July 1991, the latest in a long series of meetings was due to take place between representatives from the Bank of England, the Luxembourg monetary Institute and the majority shareholders so that the finalised restructuring plan could be presented to the majority shareholders. A new chief executive, Mr. Kingshott, had been appointed, and a new name—the Commercial Bank of Europe—had been found, but that plan came to an abrupt end on 5 July as a result of the Bank of England's decision.
As the House knows, this morning's High Court hearing was adjourned. I attended the hearing, and was amused to see that the judge was having as much difficulty as some of the lawyers in following this complex case. I strongly believe that it is not impossible to save the bank, or at least to protect the depositors and staff. The


adjournment has provided ample opportunity for consideration as to whether something can be done to ameliorate the situation.
It is disgraceful that a rush to wind up the bank should prevent a possible rescue of parts of the group by the sheikh. I understand—I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is his understanding, too—that on Saturday the Abu Dhabi-based BCC (Emirates) conditionally approved a takeover of BCCI's three branches in Pakistan. It is possible that attempts are being made to construct a new regional bank out of the remains of BCCI.
Even now, at the eleventh hour, it would be possible to arrive at a formula to help the depositors, investors and staff. The answer may well be a freezing of the bank's assets and the payment of interest with the long-term aim of creating a new bank, allowing those who wish to take the statutory compenstion to do so. To achieve that, the Governor of the Bank of England must continue his dialogue with the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, and the Bank of England must show a willingness to do that. Will the Minister confirm that the Government would support such an initiative?
There are reports that British exporters are in danger of losing at least £2 billion as a result of the closure, and that some of those firms may themselves close. What action does the Minister propose to take to assist them? Clearly, the plan presented on 5 July—which had taken many months to develop—is wholly inapplicable, due to the Bank's action.. If the group, or any of its constituent elements—including BCCI—is to avoid liquidation, an alternative plan must now be developed by the sheikh, in conjunction with the commissioner appointed by the Luxembourg court, Mr. Smouha, and the Bank of England.
Is the Minister aware that, in the past 10 days, a number of meetings have been held by Mr. Smouha and those representing the sheikh? Those meetings have involved constructive discussions intended to explore whether there is any alternative to liquidation. The adjournment of the case in the High Court allows the sheikh to conduct a review, and to enable the discussions to continue, with a view to establishing whether there is any viable means of preserving the value of the group for the benefit of all interested parties—depositors, employees and shareholders. The possibility of a viable alternative to liquidation is, in the sheikh's view, a real one.
The majority shareholders have already taken active steps to secure that objective, and apparently wish to continue to do so for as long as may be necessary. If, however, the court ordered that BCCI be wound up, the majority shareholders would have no continuing interest in rescuing that element of the group. The negotiations and discussions are continuing at the highest level. Is the Minister aware of those discussions, and does he support them?
Did the Minister know that a meeting had taken place in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday 16 July 1991—attended by Mr. Jaans, the director-general of the Luxembourg Monetary Institute, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Leigh-Pemberton, and Brian Quinn, the director of finance, together with the ambassador to the United Arab Emirates? Mr. Jaans referred to the six-month period that Mr. Smouche had been given by the Luxembourg court to do what he described as a thorough stocktaking intended to enable him to tell the court whether a reconstruction of BCCI should be attempted.
Mr. Jaans stated expressly that he regarded the stocktaking operation as being necessary to establish the true position of BCCI and that it must be completed before a solution could be found. Will the Economic Secretary confirm what he said to me earlier—that if there were any means by which a reconstructed group could be viable, by removing those who have committed the fraud and bringing them to justice, the Government would support it? Is he aware that there are only eight days in which to do so?
As the Economic Secretary knows, the issue was raised earlier in the House. Serious allegations have been made in some main newspapers about alleged terrorist links with the bank. Will the Economic Secretary comment on those allegations and tell us whether the security services have indeed informed Ministers? Has the matter been reported to the Cabinet's joint intelligence committee? I understand that the British security services first warned the Bank of England over a year ago of terrorist links and of accounts used by terrorists, including Abu Nidal. It is important that Ministers should take early opportunities either to confirm or to deny those rumours.
Did the security services tell the Prime Minister? If so, the Prime Minister had two different channels of communication—first from officials from the Bank of England, in his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and secondly, from the security services in his position as the Prime Minister.
I wish to refer finally to two points. The first is the position of local authorities. My hon. Friend will speak later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about local authorities, which have been severely affected. They invested their money on the basis of an authorised list provided by the Bank of England and with the approval of the Department of the Environment. When we met the Governor on Wednesday 10 July he said that the list was not a guaranteed list. Both my colleagues and I disagreed. A list from an authoritative body such as the Bank of England must be assumed to be authoritative. Unless it carries an exemption notice, there is, in my mind, no question that it cannot be acted upon. Can the Economic Secretary confirm what action has been taken by the Government to ensure that the list has been checked and that all the listed insitutions are sound? What compensation is he proposing to offer to local authorities?
Depositors—the Economic Secretary was pressed about this on 8 July when he made his first statement to the House—must be given an assurance that the amount being offered by the Deposit Protection Board will be increased from the present level of £15,000. The average portfolio of investors in this bank is £15,000. They cannot possibly be expected to accept less than that. The Government must consider increasing that figure. If they cannot do so out of their own funds, they must pay even more attention to the initiatives currently being undertaken by the sheikh and others so as to ensure that they succeed.
This has been a fiasco which has degenerated into a shambles. The pivotal role of the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England needs to be carefully examined. I welcome the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee inquiry. I hope that the Committee will invite the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence. The Prime Minister had the audacity in the House this afternoon to accuse my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of muckraking. How can raising the hardship and misery of individuals and others, and the


possible failure to act properly, be regarded as muckraking? In my view, the Prime Minister ought to apologise to those whom he has insulted.
In a democracy, we demand the right to know the truth. The depositors, the investors, the staff—indeed, the whole country—want to know the truth. Those in high office who have breached their duty of care should consider their position in the light of the revelations of the past few days. This astonishing banking scandal will live to haunt the present Administration and taint the reputation of the Bank of England for years to come. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will act.

Mr. Michael Knowles: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for the kind words that he said about me. We started together on the scheme in the somewhat vain and naive hope that, in an election year, BCCI could be kept out of the party political bull ring. Inevitably, it was bound to be dragged in.
Bank failures in the United Kingdom are rare compared with countries such as the United States, where banks go to the wall not every day of the week but reasonably frequently. In the United Kingdom, such failures tend to be rare because of the Bank of England system, which has been very effective. With the more open international banking system, which has grown and I suspect will continue to do so, BCCI could happen again —and all too easily.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there are two salient points to this affair? The first is that BCCI was not registered in this country, so the prime regulatory authority was not based in this country. Secondly, bank regulation is not for the Government but for the Bank of England. That has always been true, and presumably would be if, God forbid, we had a Labour Government.

Mr. Knowles: That is right. The Bank of England is not an independent central bank like those in Germany and the United States. In the Banking Act 1987, the House deliberately give it great powers of independence. The alternative is for the Chancellor to look after it, but I am sure that no Chancellor would like to do that.
As far as I am aware, no hon. Member has had the opportunity to read the auditors' full 800-page report. In the Governor's opinion, that report of 26 June left the Bank of England with no choice but to move immediately. It revealed not inefficiency or poor management but fraud on a massive scale. The phrase used was "a bank within a bank".
The Bank of England has been subject to similar criticism in the past. The Johnson Matthey case showed that the Bank of England will lean over backwards to save a bank if it is humanly possible. However, the Bank of England believed that nothing could be done to save BCCI. It may have been right or wrong, and that will be tested in the courts in eight days' time and certainly in the investigation, but the fact that it had to act is irrefutable, because that responsibility is laid on it.
Did the House get it right in not only the 1987 Act but the Banking Act 1981? I suspect that the answer to that will emerge in the report.
With the internationalisation of banking, and given the amount of money in that system, the problem will be how a single nation state polices an international bank such as BCCI. We could tighten the 1987 Act and the Bank of England could close any institution not on proof of fraud or any wrongdoing but on suspicion alone. Is anyone going to argue for that power to be given to the Bank of England? That might also have an effect on the operation of the City of London. There might suddenly be a massive growth in Frankfurt and Paris as international centres.
Pre-1987 and in the old days, the Bank of England worked very much on an old boy network. We moved away from that as we saw a changing international environment. We wanted to move the Bank more towards having to work on a basis of law and of being able to prove its suspicions rather than having a quiet word in somebody's ear. That means that situations like the present one can occur. One cannot have the best of all systems; one will always have to make hard choices. We made choices when we passed the 1987 Act.
Can BCCI be rescued? As the hon. Member for Leicester, East said, there are eight days in which to decide that. Who can rescue it? There would seem to be only one man—his excellency the Sheik. How much will it cost? No one knows, because no one has yet been able to quantify the amount that has been extracted fraudulently from the bank. We have no idea what funds are left in it. The amount could be anything up to the book value of £20 billion, which is a horrendous sum.
Should the Bank of England have acted sooner? Some argue not that it has acted precipitately, but that it left it too long. I suspect not, because the Bank hoped to have some proof on which to operate. The gap from 28 June to 5 July does not seem unreasonable.
There had to be consultations with Luxembourg, where the bank is domiciled. When the Luxembourg authorities had agreed that action had to be taken, it then had to be agreed with all the other regulators and central banks around the globe, and they all had to move together. I remember it being explained clearly at one meeting that, if one loophole had been left, funds would have flowed out of the bank so fast that nothing but an empty shell would have been left. The whole point was to try to save at least some of the investors' money.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned local authorities and investors. No lists are issued by the Bank of England with hard guarantees. No Government could give a guarantee to anyone investing on a market anywhere that he will be totally safe. If somebody offered someone else a gold brick for 50p, he would do well to investigate it and look at it closely. The same applies if someone offers 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. more interest. Why is he doing that? How is he able to do that? The responsibility lies with all of us individually when we invest our money. It is still a matter of caveat emptor—the buyer has to beware. No one can or will give a guarantee.
I feel more sorry for the small investor who gets taken in by a fraud. I have less sympathy with professional investors and with borough treasurers, who are paid substantial sums to know their way around. If we could do something to help the smaller investor, I would be sympathetic. Some councils seem to have been trying to play the money market and have got their fingers burnt.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Of all parties.

Mr. Knowles: Of all parties. This is not a party political point. I have a fairly hard heart towards such councils, and that is probably true of most hon. Members. There will be a lot of lessons for a lot of people to learn from this, not least all hon. Members who have passed the Banking Acts. In many cases, they were bipartisan Acts which had been in the treadmill of legislation for many years. We may have got it right, but we may have got it wrong. Before we start trying to pass the buck to other people, we must look carefully at what we did right and wrong in the first place.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make a relatively short speech. Many hon. Members present tonight have taken part in all, or almost all, the meetings that have been held so far with the Treasury and the Bank of England.
I shall deal with the issue of local authorities. Local authorities, whatever their political persuasion, are concerned at the interpretation, after the event., being placed by the Department of the Environment and the Treasury on the list issued by the Bank of England. Discussions between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the local authority associations were held in mid-May. Therefore, one can well understand why local authorities feel extremely aggrieved about the reinterpretation of events now offered by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House a Press Association report issued earlier this evening. It records the disturbing claim by Sky News that it has documentary evidence to suggest that Abu Nidal was ferried between BCCI branches in London by the police, with the full knowledge of MI5, to oversee his accounts. That operation was allowed so as to ensure that MI5 had close contact with the terrorist to enable it to monitor his activities and that of his organisation. We should remember that this is the terrorist who planned and caused the destruction of the Pan Am aircraft over Lockerbie.
That allegation has not been made by a politician or an organisation known to be sympathetic to the Labour movement. We are talking about an organisation owned and controlled by Murdoch and his associates. According to the information from Sky, it is clear that the manager of the BCCI branch in north London provided information to the police and MI5 about the amount of money deposited on behalf of the terrorist in both of his accounts. He says that he gave information to MI5 about the activities of the bank in relation to that terrorist organisation.
According to the allegations, MI5 revealed the information to the Bank of England which set up an inquiry into Nidal's accounts in London code-named Project Q—Q for Qassem, the name of the Jordanian manager of the London branch.
Given the type of information that has filtered out, one can understand why the Opposition and the people cannot believe that the Prime Minister's sole knowledge of the events commenced on the morning of 28 June when he met the Governor of the Bank of England at Downing Street to discuss the latest Price Waterhouse report. That is inconceivable. In October 1990, the Governor reported to the then Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, on the

Price Waterhouse inquiries. Since then, he has kept the Prime Minister and the current Chancellor abreast of events.
My local authority has so far lost £2·1 million, plus interest to the value of almost £26,000. My authority has banked on and off with BCCI since the early 1980s. At one stage, it withdrew its reserves from the bank following an investigation in the United States. Money was replaced in the bank following discussions and assurances from the authority's advisers, the brokers R. P. Martin, and from others in the City. One of the decisions we should reach as a result of this case is whether brokers should be regulated far more strictly.
The Treasury and the Bank of England should at least support those local authorities. Organisations such as R. P. Martin should immediately provide their accounts to show all transactions between the local authorities and the bank. That would clarify, once and for all, whether R. P. Martin and other brokers received preferential treatment and, in the process, failed to carry out their duties on behalf of their clients, the local authority associations. It is vital to the brokers' organisations in the City that that happens urgently.
Last week, my local authority asked R. P. Martin, verbally and in writing, for that information. I understand that it has failed to respond to the request for information. Will the Minister respond by saying whether the bank will put pressure on brokers to ensure that such information is made available at the earliest opportunity?
The Minister may also like to comment on the fact that, at 10 am on 5 July, in the normal course of events, my local authority sought to transfer its overnight deposit from BCCI to National Westminster Bank. BCCI acknowledged that request at 10 am, and at 12 noon it notified the local authority that the Bank of England had stepped in and was preventing the transfer of the funds to the appropriate account at NatWest.
Why, three hours before the bank was closed, was a transaction that BCCI had agreed to make to one of the clearing banks intercepted by the Bank of England? Because of the Bank of England's action, my authority lost over £2 million. Was that step taken to prevent haemorrhages of funds from other institutions, or was it a direct attempt to ensure that local authorities and other lenders did not have the opportunity to withdraw substantial sums of money which could be used at a later date by the liquidator? The Minister should make a commitment to provide a public answer to that question.
In the meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, I raised—as did other hon. Members—the subject of the list that the Bank of England issued to local authorities. I do not have time to discuss whether that list carried a risk. If I accept the argument that it did, why did Treasury and Bank of England officials at the Committee on Local Authority Borrowing, which met on 10 May in the Treasury under the chairmanship of the adviser to the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, go out of their way to make it clear to the local authorities that there were no problems with the secondary banking system?
Indeed, Mr. Beverly, representing the Bank of England, said that local authorities would have to take into account the risk of overreacting and moving funds unnecessary and at some expense. That statement was not made in isolation. It was a direct attempt by the Bank of England


to put off inquiring local authority treasurers who were voicing concern about the problems of the secondary banking system at that time.
Given the consequences of the two smaller banks, on 13 May—

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No, the hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution. If he cannot do so, it is tough luck—at the top.

Mr. Smith: Why does not the hon. Gentleman read from paragraph 11 of the minutes of the meeting?

Mr. McCartney: I would read the whole minute if I had time. From the discussions in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, it was clear that local authority representatives had become concerned that there was no guarantee about the list. They therefore said that it would be reasonable for them to withdraw the funding from the secondary banking system. In paragraph 13, the Bank of England representatives went out of their way to show that that was not the best course of action for them to take at that time.
That minute was subsequently followed by a letter on behalf of the local authorities from those represented at the meeting. The letter asked the Bank to confirm that it had been given the assurance that there was no systemic problem with the secondary banking system and to confirm the confidence shown by the Bank of England at the meeting of 10 May. The Bank of England did not respond to that inquiry to deny confirmation that there was no substantial problem lurking round the corner for the local authorities that were investing in the secondary banking system.
However, we know from the information that came to light that that was not so. The Bank of England was well aware that it would take action within days, if not weeks, to close down the bank. We can well understand why local authorities feel aggrieved that they were taken for a ride by the Bank of England and the Treasury, which failed to take them into their confidence when the issue was raised on 10 May by those representing local authorities at the meeting at the Treasury.
Irrespective of what anyone believes about local authorities' role in the affair, one fact is clear—local authorities of all political persuasions have become involved. All took the same view about investing in the bank. They all took the same advice, and came to the conclusion that, having made the best inquiries that they could, their investments were safe.
Local authorities will survive the affair, but that is not true of the tens of thousands of small depositors in this country. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that, if it is clear that the Treasury failed to recognise the signs as soon as it should have done, and that the Bank of England failed to act to defend depositors, the Government should admit that mistake and allow compensation to be paid.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I think that I know what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) was trying to say about paragraph 11 when he attempted to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech. However, I do not think that he heard my hon. Friend's comments. At the meeting, assurances were given about the secondary banking sector and, having heard them,

treasurers believed that they were safe in making investments. Therefore, paragraph 11 does not relate to the issue to which my hon. Friend alluded—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Harold Walker): Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr McCartney) or in a hypothetical intervention that I did not hear.

Mr. McCartney: Either way, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr Campbell-Savours) made a telling intervention. My hon. Friend is always able to provide information to the House that is helpful in clarifying the confusion surrounding this issue—which is more than can be said about the various statements that have been made by Ministers to the House.
During the past few weeks, we have seen a pass-the-parcel Government. The parcel has passed between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, the Treasury and the Bank of England—and back again. During the past 18 months or so, millions of pounds have been sifted out of that parcel. A decision was eventually taken on 28 June which changed for the worse the livelihoods of many people in this country and worldwide, probably for the rest of their lives.
The lesson that should be learned from the debacle is that we must ensure that nothing similar happens again. We must ensure that we have international arrangements so that small countries such as Luxembourg cannot hide behind inefficient regulations that allow funds to flow into that country that affect the international banking system. We must also devise a warning system, so that not only local authorities but others can invest with confidence in the secondary banking system—otherwise, it will be deprived of many millions of pounds of resources, which are important to its continuing good health in the British economy.
I hope that the Minister will take on board not only the points made in the debate but over the past few days and weeks. Unless he does, we will be back debating the collapse of another bank, and the problems that that creates not only for local authorities but for tens of thousands of our constituents.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask for very brief speeches? Mr. Burt.

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North): I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the BCCI affair has many levels. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for reminding the House that the real villains are those who are allegedly guilty of fraud. We are running around chasing everyone else, but we should be chasing those primarily involved in the fraud—and they should be brought to justice as soon as possible.
There are many questions to be asked at the highest level of both the Bank of England and the Treasury concerning the time scale of knowledge held by each. As a Member of Parliament whose constituents have lost £6·5 million via the local authority's investment in BCCI, quite apart from the losses of individual investors, I recognise the need for, and welcome unreservedly, the inquiry—and


the remarkably free range of it indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement. He clearly contemplates that no holds will be barred, and putting himself forward if required to do so. Only the most churlish person can fail to recognise the integrity of such an offer.
As to the casualties of the affair, I will concentrate—as did the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) —on one group of investors, in the form of local authorities. The BCCI scandal has made more open than ever before the complex nature of local authority financial transactions. After the public difficulties concerning, recent interest rate swaps that led to court cases, several councils lost significant sums of money through that particular choice of investment.
The inquiry will, rightly, examine the role of the Bank of England and the Treasury in the BCCI affair, but I hope, for the sake of millions of taxpayers throughout the country, that local authority finance systems will also come under scrutiny. I stress that I am in no way prejudging the issue, or impugning the integrity of any local authority officers. I merely want to make it clear that many people whose local authorities have lost money are asking pertinent questions. The most pertinent among them is, "Why us? Why did other authorities choose not to invest as ours did?"
It is incumbent on all public officials to seek answers to such questions. What standing orders govern the making of local authority financial transactions and their reporting to meetings of their full councils or council committees—and are they adequate? In the case of Bury borough council, an officer is empowered to deal, under delegated authority, with day-to-day investment decisions —and that is quite right. I cannot see that arrangement changing, and nor should it. However, the council's standing orders do not subsequently require a full report detailing, among other things, the name of the bank with which a deposit has been placed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The same is true of all local authorities.

Mr. Burt: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion—he makes my point for me.
In Bury's case, an investment of £6·5 million was made for five years, from April 1988, renewable on six-monthly instalments—the last being in April 1991. Although the terms were reported in confidence to the council's finance sub-committee, the name of the bank in which that money was invested was not revealed—nor was it required to be. I cannot help but feel that such deposits should be reported in full. If that were done, at least all councillors would know of the details of an investment, and any who came to believe that there might be something untoward about the bank concerned could make further inquiries. That could not be done in the case of Bury—and I suspect that the same is true of many other councils.
The hon. Member for Makerfield asked what rules govern the relationships between local authorities investing public money and the investment brokers. Is it wise to take advice "for free"? It is emerging that certain investment brokers who advised councils were allegedly on commission from BCCI of up to four times the norm. Was that known to local authorities? Did they ask? Should they

not be compelled to seek independent untied financial advice, or at least know in detail and make public the commission arrangements of those who advise them?
Exactly what information was available and circulated among local authorities from 1988 onwards? Why did some authorities resist the pressures to invest with BCCI? Why did some—notably and incredibly, Lambeth—withdraw investments already made while others did not? If all local authorities looked to the famous Bank of England and Department of the Environment lists as gospel, many other authorities would have been caught out. They were not, and we should all know why.
I submit that the questions that I have asked are appropriate for all local authorities, because I suspect that Bury's action was pretty standard. It is proper to pursue such inquiries, bearing in mind the fact that the public in the authorities concerned cannot easily be expected to put the loss of millions of pounds down to experience. Whatever comes out of the inquiries that involves the Bank of England, some authorities—I accept, not all—would still have been caught out, having invested some time ago. Had the Bank of England been in a position to close down BCCI earlier, such authorities would have lost their moneys a few years before they did. For them, therefore, my set of questions about their predicament is easily as relevant as any other set of questions that has been directed to the Government and the Treasury inquiry.
Whatever may have been the cause of the losses to local taxpayers, I hope that they will not have to pay too high a price for the actions of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and I support the efforts that are being made by authorities to persuade the Government to spread the repayment of the debts over as long a period as possible, to reduce the impact year by year on local taxpayers.
None of us wants to see BCCI-type collapses affect public authorities in future. Only by asking the right questions and seeking the right answers will some good come from the collapse. Only in that way will a similar situation be avoided for local taxpayers of the future—who deserve no less.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to head a committee of inquiry into this sorry and unhappy affair is a welcome one.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a short debate, is it right that the summings up should continue for half an hour? This is meant to be a private Members' day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the convention that, when a Front Bench spokesman seeks to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, preference is given to him. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, will not take up so much time that no other Back Bench Member will be able to contribute to the debate. I hope that other Back Bench Members will be able to take part in the debate before the time limit expires.

Mr. Boateng: The appointment of Lord Justice Bingham to head an inquiry into this sorry and unhappy affair is a welcome one. It is, however, a matter of regret that the Opposition's call for an inquiry was not met


sooner. It is also a sad and sorry affair that there is about the inquiry, and the Government's surprising reticence in relation to its terms of reference, suspicion on our part —indeed, more than suspicion—that we are about to see created a smokescreen behind which the Government intend to play a game of pass the ministerial parcel.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Rubbish.

Mr. Boateng: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would refrain from making comments of that nature from a sedentary position. He will have time to make his own speech.
There is concern on our part that we shall see the creation of a smokescreen behind which there will be played a game of pass the ministerial parcel, and that the Government will use that as a cover for inactivity on matters that it is possible for them to take action on now.
I raise one such matter immediately with the Economic Secretary because he is aware that it has been raised with the Government on several occasions since the BCCI affair came to light. It relates to the role of auditors and whether there should be a duty, not merely a right, placed on auditors to report to the regulating authority—the Bank of England—when they have a suspicion of irregularities, dishonesty or fraud. That is a reasonable demand, but it has been consistently resisted by Ministers. Will the Minister now say that he does not intend to continue to resist that modest request, and that he will not allow the appointment of a commission of inquiry to be the cause of delay in that matter?
Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry can consider the following questions? Do current regulatory procedures concerning both sound banking practice and fraud provide adequate protection for the consumer? Should there be an independent supervisory body for the banking industry? Should banks have a statutory responsibility to insure customer deposits? Should this country propose amendments to the European Community first banking directive to establish more effective supervision within the single market? Finally—this relates to a matter that I raised with the Minister earlier—will the inquiry consider the role played by the BCCI auditors in the light of their responsibility to present a true and fair view of the company's accounts, and what changes should be made in that regard?
Those are five simple matters, and we seek an assurance that the inquiry can take them on board within its remit. If it does not have a sufficiently wide-ranging brief, and if it is not equipped with the power not just to summon Ministers and civil servants but to sub poena others who do not fall within either category, we must wonder whether the inquiry can adequately do the work that I imagine the whole House wants it to do.
It is important to ensure that there is a clear sign, at the earliest possible stage, of exactly what Ministers knew and when they first knew it. There is a concern not only about when the Treasury and the Chancellor knew the facts—either the present Chancellor or, importantly and significantly, the former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister—but about the role of the Department of Trade and Industry. As the responsible body with regard to the

Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, was the DTI aware of the concerns of that body about the approval of BCCI's application?
If the DTI was aware of those concerns, of the failure of IMRO to register BCCI for its purposes, and of its reservations about the people operating the investment management division within BCCI, why was that not considered sufficient warning as to the probity of the bank and the fitness of those who managed it? Should not that have sparked warning lights at the Treasury and the Bank of England? There is more than a suspicion that there was a breakdown in communications between Government Departments, which of itself could only have put depositers and the general public still further at risk.
There is no reason why there should not be—and I should like an assurance that there will be—an interim report produced by Lord Justice Bingham. That would allay the very real concerns about the potential for delay and for removal of material from the public domain which should be in it as quickly as possible. We do not want the report merely to be promised tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
There is a question which I am sure the Minister appreciates is important to those within and outside the house who witness our proceedings. What can be done in the interim for the deposit holders and the staff? What is the current status of the practical steps promised by the liquidators and the Bank of England to ameliorate the plight of those people in so far as that is possible? Many small business people want an assurance that their needs and worries will not be ignored in the inquiry. The hard-pressed staff of BCCI await some reassurance, in so far as it can be given, by the liquidators and the Bank of England. We hope that it will soon be forthcoming.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind party spokesmen that the debate arising out of the Consolidated Fund Bill is one of the most precious opportunities for Back Benchers to raise matters in the House.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) did not like my saying, "Rubbish," from a seated position, so I shall say it from a standing position. It was rubbish to suggest that the Government were reticent about holding the inquiry, or that the inquiry is being held to hide something. The one certainty of our judicial system is that no Lord Justice will be used or abused by any Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Lord Justice will call whom he wishes in order to get at the truth for the House, as it has demanded. Surely that is right.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to what the Governor of the Bank of England was meant to have said. Referring to the debate in the House yesterday—Monday—today's Financial Times published a statement by the bank:
The governor certainly did not intend to give any impression that the chancellor is briefed other than in general terms on major supervisory developments and issues. As the PM indicated in the House today, the governor would not have told the chancellor about individual reports on individual cases".


It was said in the House yesterday that the Chancellor must have known of every page in the accountants' reports —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was said by the respected Leader of the Opposition.
BCCI has 48,400 accounts. Some 36,000 of them have less than £1,000, so those depositors will get most of their money back; a further 9,500 have less than £20,000, so those depositors will get 75 per cent. back; then there are 3,100 large accounts, of which the local authorities will be the biggest losers. There have been two debates on the position of the local authorities. One should not repeat the comments which have been made, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
If one thinks about it, this is the simplest thing in the world. I have a list of all the banks that the Bank of England authorises. It does not guarantee their accounts. Those banks range from those with deposits of £100 million down to those with deposits of £20 million. Any local government treasurer who thinks that a bank with £100 billion and an AAA rating is exactly the same as the BCCI, with a minus-C rating, is not fit to hold his job. If anyone thinks that for a treasurer in the Western Isles to borrow £17 million to lend to someone else to gain ¼ per cent. more interest is not irresponsible, it is hardly surprising that so many Labour-controlled authorities go up the spout.
The one certainty is that everyone has a fiduciary capacity to be responsible with other people's money. We may be sorry for the people who chose such idiots to be their local authority treasurers, but it is no good saying that it is the Government's fault and that the Government should bail everyone out.

Mr. Tim Smith: I referred earlier—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) refused to give way to me when I sought to draw the attention of the House to the minutes of the meeting to which he referred. This is an important matter. The representative of the Bank of England, Mr. Beverly, addressing the local authority associations which were present at the meeting, emphasised:
The list did not say anything about the relative creditworthiness of the institutions or that they could not fail. That was an assessment the local authorities, and other depositors, had to make.
That was passed on by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in a circular three days later to its members when it said:
It cannot be assumed that all institutions on the list are equally creditworthy.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I agree with that point. The list is clear and it is there for good reason. Anyone who wants to lend or borrow money can look at that list. If the Opposition are saying that when there is a list this long of category A and B banks, one should lend to an inferior bank, they do not know much about local government finance.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Lord Justice Bingham would have been the first choice of many of us for the task that he is about to undertake. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister was unable to confirm this afternoon that the Lord Justice will have the power to compel witnesses or to take evidence abroad. I hope that we shall hear from the Economic Secretary tonight that that will be the case.
I was criticised by the Prime Minister when I intervened this afternoon for referring to the toytown banking laws of Luxembourg. I make no apology for repeating that allegation. My recollection of Noddy is that he was particularly good at keeping secrets, even from Mr. Plod.
In December 1988, Professor Richard Dale, the consulting editor of the Financial Times Newsletter and Financial Regulation Report, wrote an article in which he suggested that the BCCI holding company structure was designed to bypass the regulators, that Luxembourg's secrecy laws were inviting criminal activity at BCCI and that for those reasons, as well as the absence of a lender of last resort, BCCI could collapse. Lord Justice Bingham will probably not be looking at the differences between European banking laws and regulation, but I hope that, in the light of what has happened, the Government will.
The banking laws of Luxembourg are similar to those of the Cayman Islands. They guarantee secrecy. That means that they are calculated to be attractive to tax evaders, fraudsters and money launderers. Luxembourg can nevertheless claim to wash its hands of the inevitable consequences of having such lax laws.
BCCI's corporate structure, which consisted of an unregulated Luxembourg holding company and two main operating subsidiaries incorporated in separate offshore secrecy havens, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, was purpose-built to confuse the regulatory authorities. That structure made nonsense of the Basle concordat, which was revised in 1983 specifically to take account of
the principle that banking supervisory authorities cannot be fully satisfied about the soundness of individual banks unless they can examine tha totality of each bank's business worldwide through the technique of consolidation.
I ask that there should now be a searching review of the international bank regulatory framework. A number of points are already clear. First, the principle of consolidated supervision which was formally adopted but then neglected by the group of 10 countries in 1983 must be rigorously enforced. Secondly, further efforts must be made to combat bank fraud, and that should mean greater emphasis on unannounced on-site examinations by regulatory authorities.
Thirdly—I acknowledge my debt to Professor Dale for these views—and most importantly, the present regime under which offshore banking services tout for business by offering secrecy, fiscal and other regulatory inducements needs to be overhauled. After all, what conceivable benefit does a banking centre in Luxembourg or the Cayman islands confer on the global economy? Offshore banking is a legitimate business, but it should be conducted in centres that have the financial and regulatory infrastructure to host it responsibly.
Part of the responsibility for what has happened with the BCCI lies with Governments who have been prepared to condone such a lax regulatory structure. I hope that the Government will allow Lord Justice Bingham to take that into account; but above all I hope that he will be able to decide whether there has been a failure of a reasonable duty of care, whether by the Government or the Bank of England. If there has been such a failure, I hope that the Government will undertake to pay compensation to the hard-pressed account holders.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): I am sorry that not everyone who wished to speak has been able to do so, but I wanted to try to answer as many as possible of the points that have been made.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised an interesting and difficult point—the regulation of multinational banking organisations. He was right that this one would seem to have been deliberately organised to make it difficult to supervise. There are lessons to be learned from that and we shall look hard at the second banking co-ordination directive and at supervision in Europe after the end of 1992.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that he was suspicious about the terms of reference of the inquiry. I am not sure why, as they are perfectly clear. I shall read them out, although that has already been done at least twice. They are:
To enquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Acts; to consider whether the action taken by the UK authorities was appropriate and timely; and to make recommendations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, it is unlikely that Lord Justice Bingham will allow himself to be used as a smokescreen. Lord Justice Bingham will be able to make recommendations to us about banking supervision. I have been asked whether I am generally happy with the powers under the Banking Act 1987. In general, we are happy, but if there are lessons to be learnt from the inquiry, we shall take them on board.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr Vaz) asked about an interim report. I doubt whether an interim report would be appropriate in this case. I hope that the job can be done fairly quickly so that such a report will not be necessary, but it will be up to Lord Justice Bingham to publish an interim report if he feels that to be necessary.
I have already dealt twice with questions about what and when Ministers knew. The Chancellor has dealt with them once, as has the Prime Minister. A series of events was involved, and the best place to bring them together is the inquiry. All records and Ministers will be available to Lord Justice Bingham so that he can elicit all the detail of what Ministers knew, and when.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Leicester, East should raise the subject of auditors. In the Committee stage of the Banking Bill, which became the 1987 Act, the Opposition spokesman, Dr Oonagh McDonald, said that she still found enormous problems with auditors being expected to inform the Bank of England's supervisors about the conduct of business by the bank of which they are auditors.
It is fascinating to see the ground shifting now.

Mr. McCartney: She lost her seat.

Mr. Maples: She knew quite a lot about banking. It is the professional duty of auditors to inform the supervisory authorities if they are aware of anything that they believe is wrong. The hon. Member for Brent, South shakes his head, but he is wrong. I did not say that this was a statutory duty. I was going to say that their professional conduct includes the duty to do so. It is also clear from the supervisory guidance issued by the Bank of England under the Banking Act 1987 that the auditors should do so. If that became a problem, we could consider a statute, but many things happen outside statute and if they work

satisfactorily they should be allowed to do so. I do not think that it has been suggested that the auditors withheld information which should have been given to the supervisors.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, East posed many questions, but as there is little time I shall have to deal with them quickly. He asked what could be done for depositors and staff. The depositors can be compensated under the deposit protection scheme, which cannot be brought into action until a winding-up order has been made. That was today adjourned for eight days. We and the bank hope that the order will be made in eight days' time, although interestingly the representatives of the depositors and the shareholder and the liquidator today resisted that. Perhaps the depositors need to decide where their interests really lie because the deposit protection scheme cannot be activated until a winding-up order is in place.
The Deposit Protection Board has already started to write to all 57,000 eligible depositors enclosing the necessary claim form. The process is going ahead even though the winding-up order has not yet been obtained. We are moving on that as fast as we can and I am conscious of the need to continue to move fast. I assure the House that I shall keep an eye on that.
I understand that all members of staff have been retained as employees until the end of July and will be paid by the liquidator for their employment during that period. A winding-up order must be passed before redundancy and compensation can be paid. It may be in the interests of staff for the order to be passed before the end of the month so that they can receive the appropriate payments.
Several hon. Members spoke of local authorities, and in that context my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) read out a pertinent passage from the minutes of a Treasury meeting. I shall not repeat my hon. Friend's point because he made it well. No one can consider that a list of the more than 550 banks licensed by the Bank of England should carry a Government guarantee. First, the potential liability for public expenditure on such a scheme would be absolutely astronomical.
Secondly, if every banking organisation carried out Government guarantee, we might see on a smaller scale what happened in the United States. People would tend to invest in banks offering slightly higher rates of return. Of necessity, that higher return is earned by taking greater risks. A guarantee scheme would remove the moral hazard and shift the risk to the Government. There would then be no incentive to invest in a responsible bank paying a slightly lower rate of interest, because exactly the same guarantee would apply to all banks. No Government would be prepared to give such a guarantee to every depositor.
Some hon. Members referred to the commissions paid by local authorities. Local authorities are supposed to be sophisticated investors and could certainly have asked the brokers to state their commission. If the authorities were advised by their brokers to take certain actions they may have legal remedies, but that depends on the circumstances of each case. Local authorities are probably looking at that. I cannot offer much comfort on that score and, as I have said, it would be invidious for the Government to try to pick and choose between different creditors. Local authorities will have to live with the problems that they have created for themselves. Those problems may require more attention than it would be appropriate for me to


give, and questions about such matters should be addressed to Ministers at the Department of the Environment.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend deal with timing? Would it have been reasonable for the fraud to be detected earlier and for the bank to decide to close earlier? Or does he think, as some people argue, that it should not have been closed at all? Have we struck the right balance? Were the seven days during which the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Governors of the Bank of England knew about the situation well spent? It is quite an achievement to close a bank of that size in seven days.

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend has made some good points. One of the misconceptions that many people have is that the first thing that a banking regulator would do if it got adverse information about a bank that it was regulating would be to close it down. In fact, the first thing that it would do would be to try to correct the problem. We have seen the awful problems that are created by the closing of a bank. It has to be the weapon of last resort. It is a serious step to take, and there has to be the evidence to support taking it. If there is any alternative, it should be pursued.
Two cases have been put to me this evening and on previous occasions. One is that the Bank of England closed BCCI too soon; the other is that it closed it too late. When a bank's licence is revoked, there are always arguments that it should have been done sooner, or that it should have been done later.

Mr. Vaz: In the short time that the Minister has left, will he direct his comments to the points that I raised about the negotiations which are going on with the sheikh, because many people would like to see the Government supporting such negotiations?

Mr. Maples: I cannot deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points, but as he has raised that one. I will deal with it. The best outcome, from everyone's point of view, would be an orderly rundown, with the co-operation of the major shareholder in a way which minimised depositors' losses. The major shareholders have proved themselves to be responsible, and we hope that they will co-operate in that rundown. The negotiations are between the Luxembourg liquidator and the Abu Dhabi authorities. It is for them to conduct the negotiations, but we should be happy if they had the outcome that the hon. Gentleman envisages.
Obtaining a winding-up order would not stop that process. If my memory of company law is right, if a winding-up order was obtained but the bank was put back in a financially sound position, it would still be possible for the order to be lifted and the winding-up process to stop. One has to go through with the order to get the deposit protection scheme activated.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why the sheikh and the Abu Dhabi authorities were not informed before the licence was revoked. The Bank of England came to the conclusion that the fraud was so deep and pervasive, and the losses so extensive, that there were no circumstances in which it would be possible to allow the bank to stay open, and nothing that the shareholders could have done, by way of changing management or injecting further funds, would have enabled the Bank of England to allow the licence to continue. The chances of putting together the sort of package that the hon. Gentleman envisages are remote, but I hope that it is possible. I would support such a move. If there is anything that anybody feels that we could do to facilitate that, we would do it, although the responsibility is with the main liquidator—the Luxembourg commissioner—who I understand is having talks with the Abu Dhabi authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there had been no arrests. It is a bit early for that. The Serious Fraud Office has only had the papers since 5 July, and these are complex frauds, as will emerge if any cases come to trial. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the inquiry would have judicial authority. The answer is no. It will be set up in exactly the same way as the Lord Justice Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster, and the Wolff inquiry into prisons, not as a judicial inquiry. It is an inquiry into the supervisory authorities', the Governor's and the Bank of England's role in this.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Ministers and Government officials and papers, and Bank of England officials and papers, will be made available to the inquiry without restriction. He went so far as to say that the Government would place no restrictions on what the inquiry had access to. If it becomes necessary for the inquiry to cast its net a little wider, we shall have to see whether it is necessarsy to give it further powers, but I hope that it will not be.
I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will try to address the remaining ones in a letter.

Nuclear Deterrence

Mr. Derek Conway: I start at this late hour by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, and to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is Opposition spokesman on this subject. The lateness of the hour is not of my choosing, and, no doubt like them, I look forward to being in my bed ere too long.
I welcome the opportunity to debate, however briefly, the nuclear aspect of our defence policy, particularly as the conventional forces are almost certain to dominate the two-day debate that the House has scheduled for its return in October, and rightly so. The Government's proposals for the conventional forces, particularly the Army, are extremely dramatic and therefore need to be discussed in considerable detail.
This is a welcome opportunity for us to consider nuclear policy, albeit briefly. It surely warrants our consideration.
Although I am pleased to see that one or two Opposition Members are present, I am a little surprised that the Opposition Benches are not packed. Here is a chance for the Opposition—and, indeed, the rest of the country—to discern the Labour party's policy, at least for this week. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable element of shifting sands in Labour's nuclear policy.
I have taken a brief look at a document that is, I am sure, dear to many hearts: Labour's 1987 general election document, entitled "Britain Will Win". In fact Britain did win, because Labour did not. Page 15 of the document, commenting on Britain's place in a modern world, explains why Labour fought the election on a unilateralist ticket—which was, of course, rejected by the British people.
Two years later, Labour produced another document, "Looking to the Future", which spoke of a dynamic economy and a decent society, strong in Europe. That document was more vague, and—perhaps cleverly, from a political point of view—managed to avoid the subject of unilateralism entirely.
I suppose that, by 1991, the lure of the red boxes and the chauffeur-driven Montego had proved just a bit too much. It is now rather difficult to find out where the Opposition stand. However, the good old Guardian came to our help last week. As hon. Members will know, last week saw a lively exchange—in the spirit of modern, free debate—between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, and its transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We were granted the interesting spectacle of the pair slugging it out, courtesy of a national newspaper. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was quoted as saying that his right hon. Friend—he may not have used that title—had
sown seeds of confusion and dillusionment".
All that appeared in the wonderfully supportive Guardian.
There is confusion, not in the Tories' challenge but within the ranks of the shadow Cabinet. We can always rely on the Tories' friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who described the contribution of the right hon. Member for Gorton as

unwise and unprincipled, and continued in a similar vein. We should be lost without her, and the wonderful supply of quotes with which she provides us.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself has seen fit to withdraw from CND, leaving Bruce Kent as one of his beleaguered candidates—destined, no doubt, to be permanently in opposition. I feel slightly sorry for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is regarded by many—and rightly so—as a very nice man, but who simply does not feature in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps, given the perpetual vote for a woman, his only way into the ranks would be to become a transvestite. I do not mean that cruelly; he is a good guy, but he has a hard wicket to fight in his own party, where confusion reigns. The situation is not helped by the leadership.
My party presented a very different history to the electorate, and it continues to endorse the same policy: a policy advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, when the USSR deployed its SS20 missiles, was adamant—sometimes in the face of considerable criticism within NATO and our European allies—that Britain would deploy the American cruise missile. There was no messing about; she warned the Soviets that, if they did it, we would match it. She meant what she said, and the Kremlin knew it.
I think that it is fair to say that the Soviets understand strength. Perhaps that is why they treat the Leader of the Opposition so discourteously: they also understand weakness. I am convinced that the progress made in eastern Europe will be judged by history to owe a good deal to the steadfastness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, who played a substantial part in the arms reductions that are now taking place, and which we hope that all sides will welcome.
It is, I suppose, right for the House to consider—even at 3.8 am—whether there is a continuing role for military force in inter-state relations. I would argue that there is. We still live in a very unsettled world. Who could argue against the proposition that Europe is still far from stable? Undoubtedly the threat of nuclear war is colossal and way beyond anything that high-explosive weaponry could achieve, although those who have witnessed high-explosive weapons say that the devastation they cause is substantial, if not on the scale of a nuclear war. Even a dictator like Saddam Hussein understood the threat, and refrained from chemical bombing during the Gulf war.
The east-west balance has prevailed for 40 years, but who can judge just how far a conflict would escalate amid the confusion of a major war? There would always be the doubted intention, the doubted action. Most of all, there would be the certainty of ability. That certainty of ability has enabled us to each the stage that we have reached in all the international negotiations.
I would argue that nuclear weapons are still a much-needed cornerstone of our defence policy. We all wish the scale to be reduced, and we should like the capacity reduced. I hope, however, that most of us see the sense of keeping and modernising our nuclear defence arsenal. If anyone is tempted to think that the Soviet economy is now down to a brush and a couple of ponies, he should look at table 4 of the defence statement that the House will consider in October, which still shows a substantial balance in favour of the Soviet forces in terms of nuclear arms.
To look on the bright side, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty was concluded between the USSR and the USA in May. United Kingdom involvement in that has ceased. All the ground-launched cruise missiles were withdrawn in December 1988 from RAF Molesworth, and in March of this year from Greenham Common. I am sure that the House will have considered the defence estimates and the statement, particularly paragraph 319, which shows that the Government welcome the strategic arms reduction treaty, agreed between the USSR and the USA. The Washington summit last June saw that framework agreement signed. Undoubtedly there is a will on all sides to reduce the burden of such a large arsenal.
The question remains, however, whether it is right for the United Kingdom to pursue the Trident programme as our national system. My party believes that that is the case and will continue to stand by it, whereas the Opposition, as far as I am aware—perhaps we shall be told differently in this debate—are still committed to its removal by the year 2000, although there seems to be some doubt about that in the shadow Cabinet. The debate provides them with an opportunity to set the record straight.
I suspect that much ground could be covered during this short debate—not only nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation but alternative defence strategies—but this is neither the time nor the place to do so. What remains the case is that, as with French socialists and capitalists alike, the Conservative party has always understood the uncertain world in which we live. Perhaps we are slightly more cynical or, as we would prefer to call it, more realistic, but our policies have been prudent and will continue to be prudent for the long-term integrity of our national security. The general public know that. They considered that fact in 1983 and 1987 and stood by us. I believe, therefore, that, as the public know us, they trust us. It is right that they should continue to do so.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a very interesting and important occasion. We are talking about the nuclear deterrent. There have been massive changes in eastern Europe. The Soviet bloc is no longer there. The threat that it posed was never there in the first place, but it was used as an excuse to build up our nuclear forces, at very great expense and sacrifice by the British people.
Justification for the nuclear deterrent was shot to pieces, to use a military phrase, by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who said, in effect, in a debate in this House in 1981 that the Soviet Union had been in decline ever since that high point of 1948 at the time of the Berlin airlift, and that it was beginning to lose control over various parts of the Soviet empire. The right hon. Gentleman's highly thoughtful speech was entirely contrary to the general trend of speeches in that debate. It was remarkably far-sighted, because the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Minister of State for Defence Procurement, said that the Soviet Union was not so strong as successive Conservative Governments had claimed., that it had serious weaknesses, and that it did not pose a threat. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but our expenditure on nuclear weapons kept increasing. We embarked on the Polaris programme in 1962 and are now faced with the Trident nuclear missile programme.
The nuclear deterrent is a myth, because the Polaris programme is not what it used to be. To varying degrees,

all the Polaris submarines are suffering from cracks in their cooling systems which make them dangerous in operation. Only one of the four-boat system is available for use. In May, Greenpeace produced a report entitled, "Bring Polaris Home". The Ministry of Defence did not reply to the questions that that study posed. Greenpeace expressed serious concern that HMS Resolution, Renown, Repulse and Revenge have serious defects. They were launched in 1966 and were designed to last for only 20 years, but they are still in use. A cloak of security prevents us from getting answers to the questions that were asked in that important report, which suggests that in reality we can hardly manage to put one Polaris boat to sea.
Over several years, we have trusted the Soviet Union. Rather curiously, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Generating Board had a uranium enrichment contract with the Soviet Union which was concluded in 1975. Some 170 tonnes of uranium per annum were supplied in the form of uranium hexafluoride. It returned from the Soviet Union as enriched uranium or as tails—that is, depleted uranium. The enriched uranium was needed for incorporation in civil reactor fuel. If it is further enriched, it can be used for bomb material.
The Government told us that the Soviet Union was a powerful organised nuclear threat to civilisation, yet they authorised a contract between a publicly owned body and the Soviet Union to enrich uranium—the basic process for producing nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the Soviet Union did not keep the uranium that the CEGB and the Scottish generating board supplied. It was perfectly honest and scrupulous in its dealings with this most powerful and dangerous material. Did the Government intervene to stop the contract? Apparently they did not regard the Soviet Union as such a threat that they felt that they had to stop the contract. It was a quite an irony.
If we are to maintain the fiction of the nuclear deterrent, someone has to be prepared to use it. If it is not going to be used, it is not a deterrent, but a complete myth.
The Minister will confirm that the Government and the Prime Minister are prepared to press the button. That means that the Minister, apparently an affable and quite innocent man, is prepared to become party to one of the biggest acts of mass extermination in human history. He and the Government are prepared to embark on killing on a scale that will make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. They may say that they do not want to do that, that it would be a failure of the nuclear deterrent if they did so, and that they would desperately wish to avoid doing it, but at the end of the argument, they will say that they are prepared to do it. I reject that attitude. I reject a relationship of our country to any other country based on the threat of mass extermination.
Other countries share my view. I do not mean countries with communist or even left-wing Governments. Let us consider Canada which is under a Conservative Government. At Heads of State meetings, the Prime Minister of Canada talks with a fellow Conservative when he meets the British Prime Minister. Canada has a Conservative Government and a Prime Minister who would ally himself with the range of values and attitudes that the British Government claim to support. But Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil.
It is extraordinary that our Government believe, uniquely, that it is necessary for our country, virtually


uniquely, to have nuclear weapons, whereas other Conservative Governments reject that attitude. They are not alone. In NATO, there are countries that reject the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, such as Denmark and Norway.
If we decided, as I believe that we should, to get rid of our nuclear weapons, we should not be isolated; we should be joining the majority of nations. How do we know that? When I was first re-elected to the House in 1987, I raised the question of the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty with the Minister. I vividly recall that he said that this country was not a signatory to the treaty. He had to write a letter to me subsequently, however, to say that he had examined the matter and discovered that this country was indeed a signatory to the treaty.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" makes it clear that the Government regard the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as being extremely important. I quote from paragraph 323 of the statement, which has not been debated by the House yet:
The NPT Review Conference in September last year demonstrated the wide support for the NPT's objectives, with agreement being reached on most issues. We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation, but the Conference nevertheless achieved a full review of the operation of the Treaty, and demonstrated its continuing importance as a cornerstone of world security.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I remember the incident, when I had been in office for a very short time, extremely well. I actually said —the hon. Gentleman will remember this—that the United Kingdom was not covered by the part of the non-proliferation treaty that he was going on about. I had to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide a full explanation of that. I never said that we were not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Cryer: I do not have the Hansard quotation in front of me, but I accept the Minister's correction. It is virtually what I said anyhow. What is important is that that demonstrates the priority that is given in the big fat briefing document that Ministers get when they get into office. The civil servants say to them, "This is your brief, Minister—this is what you've got to learn as a background to your Department." At that stage, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was obviously not one of the headlines.
The quotation from the current "Statement on the Defence Estimates" shows that the Government, a signatory to the important nuclear non-proliferation treaty, recognise its importance for the preservation of the planet. Under clause 6 of that treaty, the nuclear power signatories are called upon to negotiate in good faith to get rid of nuclear weapons from their soil. The Soviet Union and the United States, both signatories, have done that because they have got rid of intermediate nuclear weapons with the removal of cruise missiles.
The United Kingdom has done nothing. What is worse is that the United Kingdom has embarked on replacing the Polaris nuclear weapon with the more powerful Trident nuclear weapon. I believe that we are therefore in breach of United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
In our document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", we make it clear that we support the United

Nations treaty. Any Government who support that treaty are committed to getting rid of nuclear weapons by virtue of clause 6.
It is worth noting what the move from Polaris, creaking and defective though it is, to Trident will mean. In the Polaris system, there are three warheads per missile and 16 missiles per submarine. In the Trident D5 programme, there are still 16 missiles per submarine, but the number of warheads per missile has leapt to 14. Therefore, the total number of warheads per submarine is no longer 48 but has shot up to a maximum of 272, or, on average, 224.
Under the Polaris system the four submarines can carry a total of 192 warheads, but under the Trident D5 programme the submarines will carry 896, with a possible maximum of 1,088. The yield per warhead is 200 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 100 and 200 kilotonnes in the Trident system. The total yield for all the missiles is 38,400 kilotonnes in the Polaris system and between 89,600 and 217,600 kilotonnes in the Trident system. In the case of Polaris, the maximum number of targets is 64, but Trident offers a maximum of between 896 and 1,088.
The Government are intent on developing the Trident missile and installing it in submarines. Where will those dreadful weapons of mass extermination be targeted? It would be interesting to hear the answer from the Minister, but it is a secret. We are not allowed to know which section of the planet the Government propose to subject to mass extermination. What an extraordinary and absurd set of circumstances.
We believe that those weapons will be aimed at the Soviet Union. Just last week, a lot of Conservatives were grovelling around Mr. Gorbachev when he visited the Terrace. One of my hon. Friends wanted to know what Mr. Gorbachev was doing with all those Conservatives. After all, they are the very people who have argued that Mr. Gorbachev and all the other Soviet citizens should be the target of our nuclear deterrents. Considered in those terms, it is absolutely outrageous. The Prime Minister is toadying around Mr. Gorbachev and inviting him here while at the same time pointing a pistol to his head and saying, in effect, "If I determine that the Soviet Union is a threat, I shall kill your men, women and children."
The Government are supposed to be concerned with green issues. What sort of green country would this be if the button were pressed and those weapons were used? It would not be a country in which Greenpeace would get the Conservative vote—it would be a radioactive cinder heap. There would be nothing left. It would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Yet that scenario is implied when the Government or anyone else talk about deploying nuclear weapons. It is morally unacceptable and outrageous.
The United Nations non-proliferation treaty is supported by 141 non-nuclear nations—two of which the Government do not recognise—which have said that they will not deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons. Those nations have had a number of review conferences. The statement on the defence estimates indicates some of the difficulties. They are not spelt out very clearly, but the document says:
We regret that consensus on a final document was blocked by the Mexican delegation".
That happened because the signatories to that treaty are a bit fed up with the nuclear signatories. The vast majority of the nations of the world—those 141 signatories—have


signed the non-proliferation treaty. They have implicitly bargained that they will not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons if the nuclear signatories agree to get rid of their nuclear weapons. They see no reason why they should reject nuclear weapons if other countries insist on having them. On three occasions, the review conferences have said that they are not satisfied with the United Kingdom Government's attitude in retaining nuclear weapons, seeming to do nothing to get rid of Polaris submarines and manufacturing and deploying Trident nuclear submarines with their massive increase in missiles, delivery, firepower and accuracy.
One of the dangers of the world is that some of those nations might withdraw from the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and start to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. The Government will then say, "How terrible—you should not have nuclear weapons", and they will ask what God-given right the United Kingdom has to tell them that they should not have nuclear weapons when it has them. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who introduced the debate, said that nuclear weapons are important. I do not share his view, and neither do the vast majority of the nations of the world. Some of those nations might decide to do as the United Kingdom does rather than as it says. The Government says that the non-proliferation treaty is important—so important that, if a country like Iraq wants nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom and United States Governments are prepared to bomb the sites where they are being developed. That comes pretty rich from countries that have developed nuclear weapons.
I agree that Iraq, which is a signatory country to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is utterly wrong even to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. There must be an international regime to supervise any nation that develops nuclear weapons. It should dismantle, and prevent the sale of, equipment that can be used for the development of nuclear weapons. That is clearly important, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty provides a vehicle for that. That treaty may not be a perfect, but at least it is a vehicle, on which we must build. We must not erode it or criticise those nations which have declared that they will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. We should join those countries, not say that we need four expensive nuclear-powered submarines stuffed to the gills with nuclear weapons at a cost of £10,000 million.
It is morally outrageous for any Government to spend £10,000 million on nuclear weapons. They cannot be used, because that would mean self-destruction. The vast majority of the world's nations do not need nuclear weapons—they need food, shelter and clothing. Every week Parliament is in session, questions are tabled about some region of starvation or deprivation, either in our own country or abroad. There are people in the United Kingdom living on the poverty line in inadequate housing and rotten conditions. A fortnight ago, there was a sleep-out in London to demonstrate against the cardboard cities springing up in major towns and cities throughout the country.
We know about the massive levels of starvation in Africa and the Sahel, where men, women and children virtually die in front of the television cameras. While the charities get to work drawing our attention to the terrible plight, the Government continue to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than introducing a programme to switch those great assets and facilities, and the ability of

people in Barrow-in-Furness, to make items which could help to develop, maintain, preserve and enhance life both at home and abroad.
Engineering skills could be developed in Barrow, but instead, thousands of people have been sacked. Defence expenditure has not saved all jobs. As the Minister knows, there have been massive sackings, and there will be more. The conditions in eastern Europe which, some argue, precipitated expenditure on nuclear weapons, have changed. It is claimed that we are no longer threatened by the Soviet Union, but we are still going ahead with Trident nuclear submarines and the nuclear missile programme. That does not make sense, and it is a moral outrage when so many people in our country and others throughout the world are deprived of the means of achieving a decent standard of living and preserving their place on the planet.
There is so much work to be done on the planet. The ozone layer over Europe is thinning. We are in difficulties because of our abuse of the planet. Yet the Government spend £10,000 million producing weapons that we cannot use. If we ever used them, it would be curtains for all of us —we are pointing a gun at all our heads. There will be no clear distinction between defence and defended, attackers and defenders. There will be no time for that. The possession of nuclear weapons is an outrage against democracy. Has there been any consultation? Has the Prime Minister included in his charter of rights the right for people not to be slaughtered by the Government? Will people be able to say, "I don't want the Government to use nuclear weapons—I want to live"?
The phrase "Better red than dead" no longer applies because the redness is disappearing into a pale pink imitation. The phrase will be, "Is it better to be pink than dead?" The power to press the button will not be spread throughout the nation or even given to part of it. That power will be in the hands of a tiny clique—the Prime Minister, one or two cronies, and the chiefs of staff. That decision will be taken wholly undemocratically. It is a complete and utter outrage against humanity.
When the next Labour Government achieve office, they will express their support for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If people really mean what they say about that treaty, they must get rid of nuclear weapons.
There is a powerful case against nuclear weapons. If we had any sense, we would produce a plan for switching the engineering skills used in their manufacture to peaceful uses for the benefit of mankind. We would be able to help the wretched, starving nations of the world, and join with the majority of nations—including those headed by conservative Governments—who say no to nuclear weapons and will not allow them on their soil. We would also improve our civil liberties. The development and possession of nuclear weapons and our links with the United States in that respect is an erosion of our civil liberties.
I have in my hand a facsimile of the front cover of the New Statesman for 18 July 1980, which refers to
The Billion dollar phone tap",
and to Menwith hill monitoring station, which is described as
America's big ear in the heart of Yorkshire.
It reports:
America taps into our international telephone network in the cause of defending freedom".
That may be done not wholly in the cause of defending freedom but in that of defending American commercial


interests, as was done when the Americans interfered to stop the sale of BA146 aircraft—peaceful, civil aircraft —to Iran. Menwith hill was authorised without Parliament's approval. That sort of interference was exemplified also by the withdrawal of trade union rights at GCHQ. It is all part of a parcel.
I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since it began in the 1960s, and I shall continue to do so. It is morally right and makes pragmatic sense. If we join the majority of nations by getting rid of Trident, we shall be on the side of the moral majority.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on his powerful speech. One may not agree with some of his premises, arguments and conclusions, but he speaks a lot of sense.
I enjoyed also the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). No one is more arrogant than a Conservative talking about defence. It bucks one up at three o'clock in the morning to hear an arch-Conservative wrapping himself round with the Union Jack again. The hon. Gentleman gave us an analysis of Labour policy, but not of that of his own party, whose defence history he appears to have forgotten in respect of its geopolitical interests over the years.
The hon. Gentleman's history conveniently stopped at 1945. He did not delve back 10 years before that, when one of the predecessors of the present Secretary of State for Defence was a great buddy of the Nazis in Hitler's Germany. The Conservative party also enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with Saddam Hussein for some years, and with other dictators throughout the world. I am sure that the Conservatives are proud of their history, although they do not recount it very often. Instead, they claim to be the party of defence—and that is an awful arrogance. It is appalling.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about being realistic, but I would say that the Conservative party is opportunistic. Opposition Members do not need lessons on patriotism from Conservative Members. Many of us find it deeply insulting when Conservative Members, who have dallied with many opponents of Britain for purely financial and economic interests, decide to give us lectures on patriotism. Most of my constituents find that attitude insulting. In villages and towns throughout the country—in wool towns, cotton towns and mining towns —where people have always voted Labour and have always been socialists, there are cenotaphs and memorials. Those people are as interested in the defence of their country as anyone else.
It is unfortunate that the Conservative party starts to talk about patriotism when we are coming up to a general election. They cause divisions by talking about a commitment to defend Britain, and that only causes harm. When we are faced with a danger, however, the Conservative party always wants everyone to get together to form a united front. That is what we did during the Gulf war. As soon as it was over, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the Labour party was not really with the Government. I suppose that he has had to withdraw that insult. I have never known such

condemnation to be voiced by supporters of the Conservative party and Conservative Members. I remember the many Members who came up to me and said that the Minister had ruined the debate by making that awful statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Opposition's policy—I am not saying that they did not back the action when the conflict started—was to wait for sanctions to work?

Mr. Rogers: It was clearly stated that we wanted sanctions to have the maximum effect so as to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. When the Minister starts rattling his sabre, he knows in his heart of hearts that we were lucky to lose so few in the Gulf war. If the losses had been as horrendous as some thought they might be, I do not know whether the arguments that the Minister advanced and his statements following the war would have washed.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham talked about the changes in Labour party policy. I cannot see that there is any problem in changing one's political views. Surely it is a sign of political maturity. Everyone has said that the world has changed, that the Russian threat no longer exists and that we are facing a completely different set of circumstances. What is wrong with a change of political views in those circumstances?
I understand the problem of change for the Conservative party. Its attitudes are neanderthal and fossilised. Conservative Members are in a groove and it seems that they cannot move out of it. Their policies are the same now as those which prevailed during the Crimea war and which created the slaughter in Flanders. We know that the Conservative party is incapable of adjusting, and we are only too well aware of the disasters that it brings upon the country from time to time.
The Labour party sees changes in political views as signs of political maturity. If we are presented with a different set of circumstances, we can adapt our policies for the benefit of the nation. It seems from what Conservative Members say from time to time that they would welcome a Labour party that said, "In the circumstances, we might want to adopt a multilateralist stance rather than a unilateralist position." Why condemn us? I thought that that was the policy that Conservative Members wanted us to adopt.

Mr. Conway: I talked about the French socialist Government and the French capitalist Government. Many of us would be pleased if the major parties of Britain had the same views on defence, and I am sure that the electorate would be pleased as well. The hon. Gentleman talks about my party's neanderthal way of thinking and the maturity or otherwise of political development. On which level of maturity does he put the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Their views are diametrically opposed. Who is neanderthal man in the shadow Cabinet?

Mr. Rogers: It is the opposite—they are not Neanderthalic, they are two mature politicians discussing their differences, and why not? What is the matter with political argument and discussion? That is actually


beginning to happen in the Conservative party. The schoolmistress has gone; she is no longer whipping the boys into shape.
Some dissention is developing in the Tory party. which is now the party of argument on all sorts of issues. During the last Army debate, the former Secretary of State for Defence attacked the present Secretary of State and told him where he was going wrong. There have been wide dissensions on European issues.
As the hon. Gentleman has pushed me, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record the Labour party's position on nuclear deterrence. We believe that the best method of enhancing Britain's security is through the achievement of properly inspected and verified international disarmament treaties. The case for further discussions on nuclear disarmament talks is strong, and that has already been recognised by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
In a joint statement on 1 June 1991, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed that
reducing the risk of outbreak of nuclear war is the responsibility not only of the USA and the USSR and that other states should also make their contribution towards the attainment of this objective. In particular, in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons they call upon all states to consider the new opportunities for engagements in mankind's common effort to remove the risk of outbreak of nuclear war world wide.
We have considered the new opportunities to reduce the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war, and we wish to make our contribution. We know that more work is required, but hope that working with other nuclear powers we can begin talks on a START 2 agreement. We believe that British pressure could act as a catalyst for START 2. President Mitterrand has indicated French willingness to participate in the disarmament process. In addition, the French have committed themselves to signing the non-proliferation treaty. Given a sufficient weight of world opinion, the Chinese could also be persuaded to begin disarmament discussions. Once those discussions are under way, Britain should participate until they are successfully concluded with an agreement by all nuclear powers completely to eliminate those weapons.
Complementary to that work will be the need to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. Controlling the spread of nuclear weapons needs to be tackled at two levels. First, we need to take steps to make it more difficult to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. In particular, the inspection and verification measures need to have more teeth. Secondly, we must address the motives of states seeking to obtain nuclear weapons manufacturing technology. There are understandable reasons for such attempts, which relate to regional security concerns. The United Nations should be much more involved in attempts to resolve such regional problems.
There have been a number of proposals to ban nuclear testing, although it must be said that some of them have been made after the proponents of that line have just completed a nuclear test programme. The Labour party does not recognise a need for nuclear testing. Other methods, apart from full-scale nuclear testing, can be used to ensure the technical effectiveness and safety of British nuclear weapons. Testing the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, computer simulation modelling and other forms of non-destructive testing could be used to provide satisfactory evidence of the technical effectiveness

and safety of British nuclear weapons. The only real need for testing would be in the development of new warheads, which is not likely to happen under the START process.
Anti-ballistic technology also needs to be studied. The spread of ballistic missile technology to many countries is alarming. The Government must not only strengthen the missile technology control regime, which is designed to limit the spread of ballistic missile technology, but consider their position on that technology.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This has been a short, but interesting, debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on raising the important subject of nuclear deterrence. He pointed out that in 1987 Labour's manifesto was unilateral. Labour believed in nuclear disarmament and believed that Britain should get rid of its nuclear weapons without any corresponding gestures from other countries.
Since then, there has been a slight adaptation of that policy in the 1989 document, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which basically said that Britain should negotiate away its nuclear weapons. There was a flaw in that argument. If there had not been any START 2 talks, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred, we would have negotiated away our nuclear weapons and only a small part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have been reduced in return. That would have left Britain with no nuclear deterrent and the Soviet Union with enormous numbers of such weapons.
As I understand it, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was approved by a two thirds majority at a Labour party conference. If any Labour Member would like to correct me, I should be grateful for that. I believe that the Labour party conference is responsible for making Labour party policy. If a policy were to be changed, it would be necessary for the party conference to approve it. Is that the position? I am more than happy to give way to any Labour Member who wishes to answer.

Mr. Rogers: I would bow to any right hon. or hon. Friend who wishes to correct me, but, as I understand it, the conference makes a policy recommendation to the leadership of the Labour party which then constructs a manifesto upon which the election is fought. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the position is quite different from his description.

Mr. Hamilton: As I understand it, a Labour party conference makes recommendations to the Labour party leadership, which can ignore them or take them up, if that happens to suit the leadership. Is that the position? Even if a two thirds majority is in favour of a motion that has been passed at the party conference, that makes no difference, because it can be overridden by the leadership. It is important to understand the position taken on these documents.

Mr. Rogers: How does the Conservative party arrive at its policy?

Mr. Hamilton: The Conservative party has never been tied to conference motions, so we are in a different position. I was not responsible for changing the constitution of the Labour party. I thought that the Labour party believed that policy should be decided by the


party conference. It is interesting that that party is moving from that position and now says that the party leadership can ignore any motions made by the party conference, even if there is a two thirds majority. It is important to discover where we stand on all this.

Mr. Cryer: It is interesting that the Minister is exploring the democracy of the Labour party. I suggest that he looks to the democracy of the Tory party which is notable for its absence. "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was carried overwhelmingly at the Labour party conference. There was not a card vote on it, so there may or may not have been a two thirds majority. No one can say that with any authority. The Labour party conference does the groundwork for the compilation of an election manifesto in a democratic way, and long may the Labour party's democracy continue—in stark contrast with the authoritarian, elitist regime of the Tories.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Where do we now stand? "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" was an important document. It received the overwhelming support of the Labour party conference, but that policy now seems to have been changed.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on nuclear deterrence and the undesirability of nuclear weapons. I do not agree with his arguments, but he feels them strongly. I should have thought that the changes in Labour party policy to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred must put him in a rather difficult position, but perhaps we can explore that later.
Conservative Members have come to realise the importance of nuclear deterrence. War in Europe has been prevented by a range of deterrents, conventional as well as nuclear, but many of us feel that the nuclear component is the most important, bearing in mind the fact that we have in the past been faced with the enormously superior numbers of forces of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which we have been unable to match on the ground. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out if we ever were invaded has long been one of the principal reasons for our avoiding war in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham spoke of the INF deployment—a significant move, backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and President Reagan, to deploy cruise and Pershing in Europe. The deployment of those missiles was one of the most significant things that forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and resulted in the first significant treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which started the whole business of negotiating away large amounts of nuclear arsenals between the Americans and the Soviet Union.
It is significant that the deployment of cruise and Pershing was robustly opposed by the Opposition throughout and there has been no act of contrition since then admitting that this was a good policy and that the Labour party was wrong. That policy produced remarkable results in terms of subsequent arms reduction negotiations.
The Government have always taken the view that it is important that we have our own independent nuclear deterrent. It was becoming apparent that Polaris could not

go on indefinitely and needed to be replaced by a decent system. That is why we are investing in the Trident system which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says is extremely expensive. However, the figure will be taken over a number of years and, when I last looked, it was on average about 3 per cent. of the defence budget. Compared with other forms of defence spending, in terms of deterrent effect the Trident system is good value for money.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a robust and interesting speech which did not seem to quite tie in with the latest pronouncements on Labour party policy. He said that there has never been a threat from the Soviet Union. That view is not supported by any military analysis of the fact that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have in the past practised exercises for making serious inroads into western Europe and across the inner German border. We have been aware of several of their plans which have posed a serious threat.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to weaknesses in the Soviet system which, he said, made it impossible for the House to take the Soviet Union seriously as a military enemy. For a long time there have indeed been serious weaknesses in the Soviet economy, but they never seemed to extend to the Soviet defences, which seemed almost the only part of the system that really worked. The Soviets have produced massive numbers of submarines, missiles, tanks, and so on. The general view is that they have a sophisticated defence manufacturing industry and a great capability in terms of producing equipment and of training service men.

Mr. Cryer: When discussing the long-term weakness of the Soviet Union, I was paraphrasing a speech made by a Minister of State, Ministry of Defence in March 1981.

Mr. Hamilton: I have made it clear that the military capability of the Soviet Union has exhibited great strengths. We should not think that the whole place was so inherently weak, corrupt and rotten to the core that it posed no military threat.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked with great vehemence about mass extermination. The hon. Gentleman always goes on about how nuclear weapons are the only form of weapon that can kill large numbers of people. During the last war—in which, I agree, atom bombs were dropped on Japan—the fighting in Europe seemed to account for a very large number of service men being killed. They died in their tens of thousands, and millions of civilians died at the same time. It is naive to propose that only nuclear weapons kill people in large numbers. There is no evidence that large numbers of people are not also killed in conventional wars.
We want to avoid war. The question is how that can best be done. The massive destructive power of nuclear weapons has been an important component in ensuring that we have had no war in Europe since 1945.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that Canada will not have nuclear weapons on its soil. As he said, the same applies to Denmark and Norway. It is worth pointing out, however, that Canada, Denmark and Norway have all signed up to the NATO treaty and at meetings of NATO Ministers they have accepted the importance of nuclear deterrents as part of NATO's arsenal. So the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians are in the fortunate position of being able to come under the


protection of other countries' nuclear deterrents, even though they have decided not to have them on their own soil. NATO has collectively benefited from the nuclear weapons held by the Americans, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the French.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the United Kingdom had done nothing under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has always been understood that the onus is on the Soviet Union and the United States, which have the most weapons to negotiate away. We look to them to start the negotiating process, as they have in fact been doing. The United Kingdom has a minimum nuclear deterrent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the capability of the Trident system is greater than that of Polaris, but, as a percentage of overall warheads, it does not give any great increase. At a time of increasing sophistication, Trident is the minimum that we need to be able to say that we have a nuclear deterrent. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that we should negotiate away our minimum deterrent when many other countries still have nuclear weapons.
Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that the Labour party has changed its policy or that it is radically different? Does that conflict with his membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to allow his membership of CND to lapse and I gather that other Opposition Members are being encouraged to do the same. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South think that his membership of CND totally conflicts with Labour party policy or does he think that Labour's policy has not changed very much? The hon. Gentleman spoke vehemently on the matter and I shall give way if he wants to tell us where he stands.
The hon. Gentlemen is typical of many Opposition Members, because about 140 of them are members of CND. Will they allow their membership to lapse? IC they do, it will raise the question why they joined in the beginning. I thought that membership of CND stemmed from great convictions about the evil of possessing nuclear weapons and was not the sort of strong moral conviction that one simply allows to lapse.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister seems determined to drivel on at this time of the morning. Before he finishes drivelling, can he say how many Conservative Members were once members of the National Front?

Mr. Hamilton: The National Front has nothing to do with this, and I should be very surprised if any Conservative Members were ever members of the National Front. No Conservative Member has ever been a member of CND, and the Conservative party has been united in its resolve to have an independent nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister should be careful about saying that there have been no supporters of CND in the Tory party. I well remember going to a CND demonstration at Lakenham and seeing a group of Conservatives holding a large banner saying, "Conservatives against nuclear weapons". Perhaps those people have been scoured from the Conservative party. Labour is a very democratic party and encourages discussion and argument. In a democratic party there is always room for policy changes and movements. Many people in the Labour party are anxious to see a Labour Government, because they believe that such a Government will be far more sympathetic than the

present Government to implementation of the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. I am staggered that the Minister should dismiss in a couple of sentences his Government's total inactivity on that treaty. That is absolutely appalling.

Mr. Hamilton: I am a little bemused by that, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke vehemently about the matter and his membership of CND seemed to be important to him. There comes a time when one's party changes its policy so radically on some issues that the only course that an honourable person can adopt is to reject the Whip. The hon. Gentleman seems to be changing his position on the issue and falling in behind the non-proliferation treaty. He either feels that the changes are not very substantial or that they are substantial but he is prepared to live with them. His attitude does not quite tie in with the vehemence of his speech, which seemed to come from the heart.

Mr. Conway: My right hon. Friend is prodding a sore in a way that some Labour Members would prefer that he did not. Did he see the deputy leader of the Opposition being interviewed, admittedly at a late hour, on Channel 4 last Thursday? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was asked about unilateralism. In the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), he made some arrogant but failed attempts at humility, and said that while he stayed soundly in the multilateral camp, his party had moved way across to the left in the 1987 manifesto, and had come back in a full circle to his position. Is not the difference the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about individual members of the Conservative party who held no office and certainly were not Members of Parliament? No member of the parliamentary Conservative party holds a unilateralist position, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is debating the Adjournment. The hon. Gentlemen can make only one speech.

Mr. Conway: That is so. I am reminding my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen was intervening at too great a length.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of those facts. The Labour party is in great confusion over this, and the embarrassment is clear for all to see.
The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the need for properly inspected and verified treaties under international control, saying that that was what the Labour party now stands for, that START 2 should take place, and that British presssure was needed to bring this about. That may be the understatement of the year. I have not heard from the Americans that people want START 2, and a great deal of pressure would be needed to begin the talks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great ideal moment when there would be agreement by all nuclear powers to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is a problem about that, in that one has strong suspicions that there are some countries which have nuclear weapons but do not admit to having them. Will those countries be included in the treaties? Will they be talking about the nuclear weapons that in theory they do not have? Will they be gathered up


in the talks or shall we impose external verification or inspection on them, even when they say that they do not have nuclear weapons?
We must establish whether Labour party policy is to keep our independent nuclear deterrent if we cannot be confident that the talks will produce the miraculous result that no other country has nuclear weapons, as the hon. Gentleman thinks that they might. I cannot see a point at which we could be confident that that had happened. I also do not think that the scenario suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South—that if we got rid of our nuclear weapons, other countries would follow suit—would materialise. Many of the countries that one suspects have nuclear weapons have them for their perceived security interest, not because they feel threatened by super-powers with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Cryer: My argument was that we should strengthen the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—that other countries would miraculously follow our example and get rid of their weapons. Does the Minister regard it as desirable that we should try to reduce nuclear weapons stakes?

Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely—that is one of the essential parts of our policy, and has been for a long time. We entirely support the non-proliferation treaty. We must, however, be completely confident that no other country holds nuclear weapons, before we negotiate away our own independent nuclear deterrent. The same is true virtually everywhere in the world. At a time when we had good reason to believe that other countries were holding nuclear weapons, negotiating our deterrent away would have put Britain's entire defence in jeopardy and would have been a great mistake.
The debate has taken us a little way towards finding out what Labour's policy is. In the autumn, the Labour party conference may give us a chance to see whether the so-called new policy has any support among the rank and file, who pride themselves on being so democratic in their decision-making. Perhaps they will support the policy change—if, indeed, it is a change. However, we should all be much happier if we could be convinced that if the negotiations that Labour constantly talks about do not come to fruition, a Labour Government would definitely keep our independent nuclear deterrent and we would continue to possess Trident.

High Court Judges

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful, despite the hour, for the opportunity to air this issue. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, and to the Solicitor-General and his hon. Friends, for their long vigil. This problem is causing some disquiet and the debate may enable some misunderstandings to be resolved.
At the Lord Mayor's dinner for the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice said that the Government had failed to respond to repeated calls for more High Court judges, particularly in the Queen's bench, and that the system was near breaking point. The Lord Chancellor, in what was widely taken to be a reply on the launching of the court services annual report, announced that he had no plans to appoint more Queen's bench judges. It was reported in The Guardian on 17 July that judges were being asked to complete time sheets to measure their output, in order to reinforce the case for more judges.
On 15 July the matter was raised in another place, in the form of a question from my noble Friend Lord Mishcon. The Lord Chancellor said that, while waiting times for some types of case were considerably longer than he would wish, there had been some reductions. With respect, however, that is not the real cause of concern. I understand that, in the non-jury list, it is possible to secure a fixture in about a year. That is no matter for congratulations, but it certainly does not represent crisis point. Those who are content to take their place in the queue for the warned list may have a hearing in as little as eight weeks.
As Lord Ackner pointed out, the real measure of concern relates to the number of deputy judges who are required on a regular basis to man the Bench. At any one time, it appears that nearly half the Queen's bench judges are out on circuit or hearing criminal cases at the Central Criminal Court.
There will now probably be four courts sitting in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, requiring probably four Queen's bench judges. There will probably be two judges dealing with the jury list, judges hearing commercial cases and judges dealing with the Crown Office list; and there will need to be judges sitting in chambers. By the time we come to the non-jury list, there are not many left. It appears that, when the Lord Chief Justice spoke, some 58 per cent. of cases in the non-jury and chambers lists were being heard by deputy judges. By October, there could well be no High Court judges available to try cases in the non-jury list.
Of course, no one can predict with accuracy how many judges will be available at any particular time. If two long commercial cases are settled, two additional judges may suddenly become available, but the likelihood is that all non-jury list cases will be heard by deputy judges.
As the Lord Chancellor said in the other place, it is true that for many years cases have been allocated to senior silks sitting as deputy judges, chiefly in order to test their suitability for appointment to the High Court. The Times, in a leader on 11 July that fell short of its usual reflective standards regarded that as a complete answer to the argument. But that is not the present position. Senior silks have been sitting regularly for long periods as deputy judges. If there were any likelihood of their being appointed High Court judges, their appointment might have been expected long ago. Judges who have passed


retirement age are recalled to sit as deputy judges. Circuit judges sit regularly as deputy High Court judges. That is now a regular, standard feature of our legal system.
I intend no personal reflection on any deputy judge. Some of them are extremely able and try cases with a competence that cannot be faulted. We may wonder why some of them have not received High Court appointments. However, there are aspects that give rise to anxiety. The first, as Lord Oliver pointed out, is that section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits the appointment of High Court judges only as a temporary measure. For how long can a deputy judge continue to sit, week in, week out, as an integral part of the system, with that situation continuing to be described as temporary? If it is not temporary, cases are being heard by judges for whose appointment there is no statutory authority.
Secondly, litigants may feel that their concerns are of sufficient importance to them to merit being heard by a judge. The consideration of their case may have been of an impeccable standard, but they may leave the judgment seat with a feeling of dissatisfaction. Recently I heard the question asked: what if a disgruntled litigant challenged the judgment on the ground that the judge had not been properly appointed under statute?
It has been remarked that some of the cases in the non-jury list may involve sums amounting to more than £1 million. I confess that I have never subscribed to the view that the importance of a case can be measured wholly in financial terms. To someone who, by reason of industrial injury, will never work again, the sum of £60,000 may represent the difference between total penury and a degree of comfort. Working people are as entitled to have their cases considered by the best judicial minds as is a commercial company. But the point is well made that these are all cases of the greatest importance to those involved.
We may be told that the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is only now about to become effective and that we should wait to see the effects of the Act, particularly the proposals for moving more work to the county court. However, I am bound to feel some scepticism about that. Many cases involving sums of up to £50,000 have been transferred regularly to the county court for some years. I am not sure that appreciably more cases will in practice be heard in the county court, particularly since it became apparent during our debates on the Courts and Legal Services Bill that county courts are far from ready to take on much additional work, and we were assured by the Solicitor-General that no more work would be sent there until they are ready.
The next reason for anxiety relates to the strains that are being applied to some categories of case that at present are being heard by High Court judges and which may suffer if this trend continues. One area where it has been suggested that fewer High Court judges may be available is for work on circuit, particularly criminal work. Some cases, such as murder trials, are normally heard by High Court judges, although at some centres specific circuit judges are empowered to hear them. I know of no reason to complain that those cases are not properly and fairly disposed of, but I have heard anxiety expressed that if the stresses on High Court resources increase further that practice may be extended until fewer High Court judges travel the circuits. One day, it may be said that as the circuits manage quite well without High Court judges, why not withdraw them altogether?
It is sometimes pointed out that if a substantial case does not occupy the court for as long as was predicted, a High Court judge may find himself trying cases that would not normally be brought before him. That is no bad thing, because he sees how the circuit goes about its less dramatic business and can make appropriate comments.
Perhaps the greatest value of High Court judges visiting circuits is that they come back, they meet in London and visit other circuits. The presiding judges of the respective circuits meet together and the justiciary is a co-ordinated whole. A series of self-contained, isolated geographical centres without co-ordination would be far less capable of drawing attention to problems that occur over a wide area or countrywide or, where necessary, of monitoring the resources being made available by the Executive or of expressing the criticisms that are being made.
Indeed, judges who went out from London to the localities under Henry II and his successors changed the patchwork of local customary systems into the common law and brought about a central government, just as in the early 19th century, the circuit riding judges of America forged the federation into a nation. It would be appalling if that process were reversed.
One of the other concerns relates to the Crown Office list, which includes a wide and increasing range of cases on housing, education, the health service, immigration and the poll tax. Judicial review is being used for more grievances. If High Court judges were not available to hear them, and quickly, individuals would suffer. I entertain the unworthy suspicion that some Ministers and officials might not be greatly distressed if that were to happen. But I say at once that I am not alleging any deliberate policy to bring that about. I do not believe that there is any deep-laid conspiracy, and if there were no one who knows the present Lord Chancellor would believe that he would have any part of it.
The shortage of High Court judges derives more from Treasury policy and from the financial valuation that is placed on an effective legal system than from any plans for reviving the new despotism. I do not believe that the current situation resulted from any conscious action. It has crept up on us, although not wholly unnoticed and unheralded. We need to review it, lest it extend further.
We may need to reassess what classes of case are heard by High Court judges. There may be room for a reappraisal, but, if so, let there be a reappraisal about which we are all told and where those who wish may express a view. Indeed, I thought that that was what the civil justice review was intended to be. I believe that the outcome of any reappraisal would be to confirm the need for more High Court judges.
That brings me to the greatest cause for concern. Whatever else may be said of deputy judges, one thing is certain—they do not have security of tenure. If it is suggested that that is an academic point, we should reflect that generations of students of our constitution have been informed as a matter of the greatest importance that our senior judiciary have security in office. They cannot be dismissed by the Executive, as happens in some countries, with results with which we are tragically familiar.
It may be argued that there are situations in which there should be less difficulty in removing judges from office. If so, that is a matter to be fully debated, and a clear and precise procedure should be laid down. If, as we have always declared, it is a matter of the greatest importance


that cases are heard by judges who need not fear dismissal, it is a cause for the gravest concern when that is not happening and is seen not to be happening.
There is broad consensus on the matter among the senior judiciary. That should encourage us in the House to concern ourselves. I do not subscribe to Lord Radcliffe's theory that there is a wisdom, which gathers together all that is best in our national traditions, reposing in the breasts of the judiciary and which is necessary to control the excesses of Parliament. On the contrary, I believe that the rule of law, operated by an independent judiciary, is essential to effective parliamentary government. Without that, our legislation cannot fasten upon the actions of those officials whom it is intended to control. In that matter at least, the interests of the legislature and of the judiciary coincide.
If the warnings go unheeded, that may lead to a loss of confidence in the legal system and to a subtle, but real, change in the balance of the constitution—the beginnings of a slide which it is easier to start than to arrest. The additional cost of a few High Court judges over the cost of deputies is a modest price to pay to prevent those consequences.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hour is late, but the subject is important. I declare an interest, because I have been both a solicitor and a barrister—I practised both at some levels—some minor, some major—and I share great concern about what is happening to our legal system today.
When I was a student, I was taught a very simple lesson—that it was important that the state, or the Executive, was controlled, because sometimes it gets a little bit out of line. It makes mistakes because of the pressure of politics and because of the need for expediency. The judiciary and the courts were there to restrain and control. They were independent and they mattered.
For the judiciary and the courts to restrain and control —if they get it wrong, Parliament can always correct what they do—one must have in place the doctrine of excellence. One must have judges who are of superb integrity, great skill and great learning, and who have been enticed—I use that word because they are enticed by the nature of the office to give up what is often a lucrative and well worthwhile career—into sitting on the Bench. That is worth while and is a career in itself.
In the past 10 to 15 years, those of us who practise have seen, from time to time, because of pressure, because of shortage of manpower and because the courts are not always manned properly—and I am not as kind as my right hon. and learned Friend when I say this—hurried judgments, strain and people who are not quite up to it being asked to perform functions and duties for which they are not yet ready. It is sad.
When the Lord Chief Justice made his speech recently about the shortage on the High Court Bench, he was right. It is sometimes silly to deny the Bench the manpower that it needs. There is no doubt that in our increasingly complicated society, issues come before the courts that require more and more judicial hours. I put the matter as simply as that.
One cannot ask the Bench to cope with the existing workload, but, to a mere practitioner, that seems to be happening. In cases of judicial review one is told that one might get a hearing in year's time. I do not practise in that area, but if something needs to be tested, why cannot it be tested now? The answer is simple—there are not the judges available to do it.
Major fraud cases and cases involving murder, robbery or rape are now heard before a circuit judge. I do not intend any disrespect to that judge, but for something that serious one should have the most experienced judge from the High Court to try it. Sometimes rulings are wrong and the circuit judge's experience is not great enough to deal with the problem. That may lead to a miscarriage of justice and someone being incarcerated for years until the matter is reviewed on appeal and something changes. A civilised society cannot afford such a mistake.
What on earth are we doing? The Lord Chief Justice said that he needed perhaps 11 more judges. That is not an awful lot, but it would mean that the High Court Bench was to be staffed adequately. Is it right that those who exercise a judicial capacity at that level, who are subject to that type of stress, should be pushed to the nth degree through the case load that they face? Why is it that we cannot have the appropriate number of judges? What is the Executive seeking to do?
In the past I have been criticised for commenting on Mold Crown court, which is a nice court. Why cannot we have a visiting High Court judge in that part of the world? He could deal with the murders, the manslaughters and the more serious cases, including serious civil matters. Why is that not possible? Is it because we do not have enough judges?
When a High Court judge visits a court, what does he bring to it? He brings the experience that he has gained from visits to other places. I am not seeking to be unkind when I suggest such a breath of fresh air. Such outside influence does no harm to the local circuit judiciary—they welcome it. Such visits would bring new thinking. If we continue as we are, that will no longer happen.
What will the future hold? Perhaps we will have legal circuits, if that is the right word—areas in which no outside influence is brought to bear. In such circumstances everyone can get too cosy, which is not a good idea. The object of the circuit system was that judges should move about so that they learnt about different parts of the country and about things that mattered. They brought experience from area to area. That helped the circuit and the legal system.
Our society is becoming more complex and the way in which we deal with things is becoming more difficult. Therefore, we must train the judiciary of tomorrow to meet those needs. Nowadays fraud trials and others may last a year or more. When I was a law student any trial that lasted more than seven days was a miracle—it was unheard of. Now at any Crown court in any part of the country there are three or four-week trials running at any one time. That is the world into which we are moving.
When we ask someone to sit in judgment on a difficult trial that may last five or six weeks, we are putting an enormous strain on them. At the end of a trial on a criminal matter they must sum it up to a jury. Complicated civil cases may involve weeks and weeks of detailed argument. At the end of the trial the judge must provide an assessment of the merits of argument A against those of


argument B. That requires infinite skill. It requires a career structure in the judiciary that calls on those who are best able to sit in judgment.
I regret to say that nowadays the doctrine of excellence is beginning to slip. Instead of encouraging, recruiting and developing the judiciary, we seem to be restricting and restraining it. To say that we are using cheap measures would be an insult to those who sit and I would not wish to insult any of them, because they all seem to do their best, but if we are to cope with a difficult society tomorrow, we must encourage the lawyers of today. It passes by people like me, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), but we have a duty to the future and we must encourage people to seek such office. By restricting the High Court Bench and seeking to diminish the scope of the areas in which people can practise we, in turn, diminish the number of applicants who will wish to follow that path. That will be a tragedy because, in the past five or six centuries, we have built in this land a judicial system which is the envy of many. If the Government of the day—the Government of tomorrow may not think in the same way —seek to restrict simply by compacting the scope of the lawyers of tomorrow and, perhaps, the ambitions of tomorrow, we shall give future society a poor deal.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board —it is meant in the kindest possible way—the fact that penny-pinching in the servicing of the High Court Bench today builds a disaster in our judicial system tomorrow. I urge him to encourage the Lord Chancellor to think a little more broadly. It might not be a bad thing if he realised that encouraging an increasing number of people to go to the High Court Bench would serve our society of tomorrow well.

Mr. John Fraser: If I congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on getting a debate at 4.20 in the morning, my congratulations might be less than enthusiastic, so I shall not pursue that traditional line. However, he makes an important point and I was surprised at the figures that he gave, which suggested that between half and all the cases in the non-jury list may be heard by part-time deputy judges. That high proportion must give rise to concern. My right hon. and learned Friend also said—he made the point with considerable force—that judges who, although they are deputy judges, regularly hear cases in the High Court have no security of tenure. That seems to be wrong when the balances are as he described.
The Opposition have said time and again that it is important that business in the High Court and in county courts—I hope that there will be no competition between them—must be conducted efficiently and expeditiously, because justice delayed is far too often justice denied. Incidentally, that principle of expeditious business conducted by first-class judges applies not only at the top but at the level, for instance, of masters and summonses in the High Court.
It is outrageous that a case in which there may be no meritorious defence, and which proceeds under Order 14, may take four or five months to move from the issue of the

writ—now called the acknowledgement of service—to when Order 14 proceedings can be heard in chambers, even if it is a short case. That puts a premium on holding up cases simply for the chance of winning time. Therefore, I want to see improvements in that sector and at every level, including the taxation of costs—a matter which is important to both solicitors and counsel, but counsel say less about it.
It is disgraceful, particularly in relation to legal aid cases, that a case may have been conducted for several years, have to wait one year in the list to be heard and then those involved in it have to wait between six months and a year for the costs to be taxed. Matters are not always conducted efficiently. What has been said about judges, expedition and quality must apply across the spectrum. We do not want the Government to solve the problem of a shortage of judges in the High Court simply by transferring more and more business into the county court and creating log-jams and problems there, so as to avoid them in the High Court.
Will the Solicitor-General confirm that no attempt will be made to reduce the number of cases coming before the Crown Office? There have been murmurings that some judges want the number of cases coming before judicial review reduced. There are a number of ways of achieving that. We could have a tougher sieving process when getting leave for judicial review. Another suggestion, opposed by the Lord Chancellor, is that legal aid should not be made available for as many cases coming up for judicial review. There is no doubt that the ending of legal advice and green form assistance to those seeking to challenge cases involving immigration and political asylum matters could lead to a reduction in the number of cases going for judicial review simply because it would not then be possible for lawyers to put a case in hand quickly, which is necessary if leave is to be obtained for judicial review. Therefore, I hope that the Solicitor-General will confirm that no attempt will be made to curtail access to the divisional court for those purposes.
It is equally important that judicial review cases should proceed quickly. Once leave has been given for judicial review and—if the Crown is the respondent—once the Crown has filed its affidavit, for which it has 56 days, I believe that it could be months, if not a year, before the judicial review case is heard. That is not good because it puts a premium on delay. It is right that bad decisions by immigration officers and the Home Office should come before the courts for review and decision as quickly as possible. It is not helpful for the good administration of law that, when a decision is challenged, a premium is involved in having the matter delayed, with more interest in the delay than in the outcome of the case. That is one of the dangers that we must avoid in judicial review proceedings. I await with interest to hear what the Solicitor-General has to say in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I must congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), even in the dog watch, on giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject, about which anxiety was expressed by the Lord Chief Justice at the recent Mansion House dinner for judges. It gives us an opportunity to consider not only the


precise number of High Court judges but the strength and deployment of the higher judiciary generally; the areas of current pressure, in particular the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court; other areas where, happily, good progress has been made; the effects to be expected from the implementation of the civil justice review; questions relating to the effectiveness or otherwise of the use of High Court judges on circuit, and related problems such as the increase and sometimes daunting length of certain types of trial and how they can be overcome.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recognises those problems and the duty of the Government—any Government—to provide an independent judiciary with the resources that it needs to maintain—in vigour—a prompt, efficient and independent judicial system, which is fundamental to our free society. I state that not to gloss the problem but to set out what are the accepted ground rules.
Before proceeding to an analysis of the current position, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the judges of the supreme court and the judiciary generally. At a time when, recently, too many criminal trials have been shown to have given rise to serious miscarriages of justice—and in consequence our whole system of justice is rightly the subject of the review by the royal commission—there has been a tendency in some quarters to use the judges as a scapegoat and to forget that cases must be tried on the evidence. Unless one has been privileged to appear regularly in the courts, it is hard to appreciate the burden of judicial life, and easy to fail to realise that behind the wigs and trumpets and judges' lodgings lie the concentration and sheer strain of the judicial day—constant attention, careful analysis, the burden of long cases, the weight of background reading, the anxiety of setting the right sentence, and generally, for those who undertake this work between the ages of 50 and 75, of life away from home for weeks on end. At different levels, I pay tribute to the patient work of the circuit judges handling a huge variety of smaller cases, developing an understanding of housing matters, of social security, the burden of criminal work on the circuit bench, and to the expertise of district judges whose major input into cases where representation is less expert or, often, non-existent causes such heavy reliance on the court. They deserve our support, appreciation and admiration more often than they get it.
Having said that, we must also remember that resources are finite both in money and in skilled manpower and, therefore, there is a duty on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to deploy those resources efficiently and effectively.
The subject of the debate is the number of High Court judges. The fact is that today they are the highest number in our history. They have increased from 31 in 1945 to 42 in 1960, to 75 in 1979, and today, with the imminent appointment of a further High Court judge in the chancery division, to 84. Over the same period the number of Lords Justices of Appeal has risen from six in 1945 to 27 today. The present Lord Chancellor has obtained over the past three and a half years an increase of five High Court judges and four Lords Justices. The increase since 1979 in the numbers of Lords Justices, who are so essential to the

work of the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court is no less than 50 per cent.—-from 18 to the current 27 who are in post. Furthermore, with the civil justice review, much of the civil work of the High Court is being transferred to the county court. In the past 10 years there has been an increase in the number of circuit judges by no less than 110, or 50 per cent., with 49 of them appointed by the present Lord Chancellor.
The task is, therefore, to analyse the problem highlighted by the Lord Chief Justice and restated tonight in the debate, and to show what the Government are doing to tackle it. If more High Court judges are necessary, we must not shrink from the problem, but first we must be sure that we have deployed those whom we have to the best effect.
I acknowledge straight away that there are pressures in both the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court. The number of cases heard by a full court of the Court of Appeal criminal division has increased from 2,528 in 1979 to 3,627 in 1990, an increase of 43 per cent. over the position 10 years before, but with the number outstanding at the end of the year having been reduced by 12 per cent. Likewise, the number of applications for judicial review has increased markedly in the past few years. In 1990–91, a total of 2,149 cases were disposed of by the divisional court, an increase of 33 per cent. over the previous year.
It is the view of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that an extra court is needed in the Court of Appeal criminal division now and that increased resources should be devoted to the divisional court with its heavy workload of judicial review. Incidentally I should make it clear that it is the view of the Law Officers that in our complex society, where there is an ever-increasing need to rely upon secondary legislation, the development of judicial review of administrative action is entirely right and healthy. Although my ministerial colleagues have sometimes suffered its effects, I have never heard any of them suggest that such judicial powers should be curtailed. On the contrary, the response of the Government by means of such publications as "The judge over your shoulder" has been to ensure that departments of state understand better the ambit of their powers and the way that they should be exercised so that rights are respected and the law obeyed as it should be.
The picture is not uniformly gloomy.

Mr. Fraser: The Solicitor-General has paid great respect to judicial review. Is he aware of the rule that is laid down by the Home Office in immigration cases? The Home Office will withhold removal of a person from the United Kingdom for only 48 hours in order to get the case before a judge. Does he not think that that is placing far too great a burden on judges and is effectively denying individuals access to judicial review by setting such a short period between the taking of instructions and getting the matter before a judge?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult and important matter, but I am not at all sure that I do hold such a view. As I have said, it is a difficult matter and it is not the subject of the debate. There are competing aspects of the problem and I cannot say that I hold the view that the hon. Gentleman has set out.
Returning to the deployment of the judiciary, the picture is not uniformly gloomy. Waiting times in the


Queen's Bench division have been reduced to two months on the warned list, 13 months on the fixtures list and seven months on the after-fixtures list. Indeed, the number of outstanding trials in that division has been halved since June 1989. A great deal of judicial effort has gone into clearing that backlog which, I am given to understand, has now reached a level at which it is no longer sensible, or perhaps even possible, to reduce waiting times. In other words, the parties need this sort of time to prepare themselves for the trial.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree—I speak with some experience of this field of the law—that 13 months' waiting on the fixtures list in civil matters is far too long? Many years ago I was involved in the settlement of damages in a series of fatal accidents, and I know that families have to wait a long time for settlements. Surely 13 months is far 100 long and the period should be reduced.

The Solicitor-General: It is difficult to comment on individual cases, but I wonder why a case of settlement of damages requires it to be on the fixtures list when it could be brought on a great deal faster if it simply went on to the warned list.

Mr. Bermingham: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will listen, I will tell him why. It was a matter of quantum. That cannot always be agreed, and sometimes there is a point of principle in what is meant, for example, by continuing loss or by future potential earnings.

The Solicitor-General: It is difficult to dispute at this time of night, but it is not self-evident why the case had to go into the fixtures list as opposed to the warned list.
The picture in the Crown court, which was causing justified concern just five years ago, is also greatly improved. The waiting time for custody cases in London is shorter than at any time during the past 14 years during which records in the present form have been kept. Since 1979, waiting times have dropped by 31 per cent. or by seven weeks. That is in spite of a doubling of the workload of the Crown court. In this age of rising crime, those figures suggest that, although there is never room for complacency, far from collapsing, the system is coping extremely well with the challenges that face it.
Thus, while the Lord Chancellor is both concerned about and sympathetic to the problems that we are discussing, the House will realise that before he can increase further the number of judges on the High Court bench, he will need to be able to be satisfied that existing resources are being deployed to the best effect that they reasonably can. Two points in particular need to be focused upon. The first is the substantial transfer of work from the High court to the county court under the civil justice review. lit will also be remembered that paragraph 82 of the review stated expressly:
It is the leading objective of the Review that the business of the civil courts should be allocated to the various tiers of judiciary in such a way as to ensure that it is handled at the lowest level appropriate to each case.
The second point—

Mr. Archer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been most courteous in giving way. Does he recollect the debates in which we both participated on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, when I thought that it was common ground, first, that the county court was not yet ready to absorb more cases and, secondly, that no more cases could be transferred to it until it was ready?

The Solicitor-General: That is common ground in principle, and it was common ground in fact at that time. However, there has been a very considerable increase in the number of county court judges as circuit judges, as I have already shown from the statistics. There has been a considerable improvement in the deployment of those judges, with trial centres giving an opportunity for much more effective use of those resources. I know that the Lord Chancellor keeps a careful watch on the way that those matters are being progressed. The opportunity for that transfer, which was contemplated by the civil justice review, nevertheless remains.
The second point concerns the deployment of High Court judges on the circuit and the question—I put it no higher than that—whether at present what they find themselves doing represents the best use that can be made of the time, expertise and formidable experience that they can bring to bear.
In the context of the civil justice review I should say something of the widespread use of circuit judges sitting as judges of the High Court in accordance with section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and the use of silks as deputy judges—a topic of current concern, rightly mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
Mention has been made of 58 per cent. of those trying High Court cases in recent weeks falling into one or other of these categories. It is a fair criticism if what is intended as a back-up measure or a valuable training ground for those who may go on themselves to be High Court judges is allowed to become too constant a feature of the lists, but I wish to put the problem into perspective and to link it with the correct deployment of circuit and High Court judges.
To put the figures into perspective over a full year, in 1990—the last full year for which figures are available—55 per cent. of sitting days were sat by High Court judges, 21 per cent. by section 9 circuit judges and the balance of 24 per cent. by the deputies. As a proportion of all High Court sitting days, the proportion of cases tried by other than full High Court judges was rather smaller, but I recognise that the problem is principally to be found in the Queen's bench division.
A significant part of the solution to this problem and to the lightening of the burden on the High Court judiciary of the less heavy civil cases can reasonably be expected to come from the implementation of the civil justice review. Already in 1990—one knows that the transfer must anticipate the actual trial—some 22,959 cases were redirected from the Queen's bench division to the enlarged county court system.
Nevertheless, of the total of 2,489 civil trials heard by the Queen's bench that year, 1,274 of them being heard in the Royal Courts of Justice, some 1,670 or 67 per cent. were claims for personal injury, of which more than a third —578 or 36 per cent.—involved amounts below the new county court threshold of £25,000 and a further 262 or 21 per cent. fell in the £25,000 to £50,000 band eligible for trial either in the High or county courts. Those figures must be treated with some caution, since not all would be appropriate to be heard by circuit judges, but they show the considerable weight of work that can properly be transferred. That will release not only some High Court judges but a number of senior circuit judges for work including, directly or indirectly, important criminal work out on circuit.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in civil matters the problem is not always the sums involved but the legal issues? A case may concern £10,000 or £1 million—it does not matter.

The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will have noticed, that is why I astutely said that such figures must be treated cautiously.
The deployment of High Court judiciary on circuit is by no means an easy matter and the questions that I wish to raise are not asked in any spirit of dogmatism. They are matter largely for the Lord Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice who, under our constitution, are responsible for the day-to-day distribution of judicial resources as between the different areas of the Royal Courts of Justice and the circuits. Such matters are among the subjects of their regular meetings with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who, as president of the Supreme Court, retains ultimate responsibility.
There is, however, reason to believe that many High Court judges out on circuit do not always find themselves used to the best effect. That seems to be supported by analysis and anecdote. The Lord Chancellor's Department has been not unaware of the difficulty for some time and a careful analysis has been carried out which the Lord Chancellor is looking forward to discussing with the heads of division.
Based on experience in 1990–91, at any given time there are between 22 and 28 High Court judges out on circuit. On this basis, some, at least, of the cases they are to try might be appropriate to a circuit judge of suitable experience. A way of reducing the backlog of cases in the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court may be to transfer back to those areas of greatest need some High Court judges who would otherwise be on circuit, at least for a temporary period.
In summary, therefore, may I say this. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor fully recognises the anxiety on this matter. Both the present Government in the past 10 years and my noble and learned Friend during his three and a half years of office have continued the policy of significant increase in the number of the judiciary, marked indeed in the numbers of Lords Justices and circuit judges which have gone up by no less than a third and 50 per cent. respectively since 1979.
My noble and learned Friend fully recognises the burdens on the Court of Appeal criminal division and the divisional court deriving from the increase in judicial review. He is anxious to see extra judicial resources transferred in each of those directions. He is himself considering very carefully the match between the tasks to be carried out and the judicial resources available and looks forward to reflecting carefully on all that has been said in this debate and to continuing to work closely with the higher judiciary to tackle and overcome the problems in whatever way he is satisfied is necessary.

Trade Union Reform

Mr. Lewis Stevens: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of Employment for bringing him to the Chamber at such an unearthly hour of the morning.
The topic that I wish to debate is trade union reform. Since 1980 the Government have adopted a step-by-step approach to industrial relations in Britain by means of five Acts which have had considerable success.
The change in approach can be seen in the number of stoppages in recent years and the number of working days lost in industry and in service. In 1990 some 1·9 million working days were lost compared with almost 13 million on average during the 1970s, which is a dramatic change.
There have been important cases, such as the National Union of Railwaymen in 1986 and the Ford workers in 1990, where on a ballot, despite the advice of union leaders, workers have decided not to strike. Since 1980, despite the apparent lack of publicity, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been notified of more than 1,000 ballots.
Since the first of the Acts came into force, there has been a great reduction in trade union membership. That is not something about which I would gloat. It is rather sad that people should not look on the trade unions as an important part of their working lives. Perhaps part of the problem is that the unions have not managed to keep themselves attractive. Their functions have tended to become blurred with the passing years. Some of the reasons for their traditional efforts on behalf of their members have disappeared. They have frequently attained some of their early objectives.
The unions fought long and hard to reduce hours of work. I can remember the pride that my father, a shop steward, took in obtaining a reduction in the working week in his company—from 48 to 44 hours—which meant that the workers did not have to work on Saturday mornings any more.
Many grassroots members of trade unions still work as they always have done to obtain the best possible conditions for their people. But their leaders have often created problems.
The success of the legislation of recent years can be seen in the differences brought about in industrial relations and in bringing inward investment to this country. The United Kingdom has become an attractive prospect for companies from overseas. In 1989, 54,000 jobs were created by inward investment—the highest number ever. I doubt whether that could have occurred under the old-fashioned industrial relations set-up.
Unfortunately, some unions are still in the dark ages. According to The Independent, Keva Coombes, the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, has admitted that
the roots of the council's problems were the entrenched attitudes of its trade unions, which had not shifted since the 1950s".
The unions must bring themselves up to date and make themselves attractive to the membership.
There has been a great shift: whereas trade unions in the private sector used to have the most members, now the public sector unions have the most. There has also been a move away from blue collar unions to white collar unions. Because of changes in the law, the individual has greater


powers within the union nowadays; and employers can take action to prevent the worse effects of strikes—yet quite a number of people still, somewhat surprisingly, consider strike action. Only this morning I read in the Daily Mirror—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why the Daily Mirror?

Mr. Stevens: Because it was the only available paper. The back page carried the banner headline, "Strike", and continued:
Everybody out, says the PFA.
Even in the world of soccer there seems still to be a tendency to consider striking. Given the problems of the football world I should have thought that that was the last course of action the Professional Footballers Association would want to take—it will hardly be attractive to the players and clubs. I gather that the reason has to do with the proposed super league, which would apparently disadvantage some people—so they are thinking of striking. I do not believe that matters need come to that.
As for the future, there are still one or two changes in trade union legislation that could prove beneficial. In his citizens charter my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed an entirely new legal right for the citizen. Unlawful industrial action, such as an unballoted or political strike in a public service, can currently be challenged by an employer or a member of a union who is called upon to take part in the action. Such strikes have a widespread and devastating effect on the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. Under the new proposal the citizen would have the right to bring legal proceedings to halt any unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the citizens charter. That will deal with cases in which people are severely affected and will cover people in business or those trying to get to work.
Many trade unions in the private sector have no-strike agreements, which are an important advance in industrial relations. People who work for some public services are not permitted to strike, but perhaps workers in those services should consider voluntary acceptance of the fact that strike action should form no part of their armoury for carrying out negotiations. Pay review bodies, which were introduced by the Government, have taken away the likelihood of strikes.
I read in The Sunday Times about the sacking of the chief of the National Union of Journalists. The report said:
For subscriptions of up to £165 a year, among the highest in the trade union movement, members have complained that they get little more than a laminated press card and a newspaper that spouts left-wind ideology.
Surely the purpose of trade unions is service to their members. Earlier I spoke about the leadership of trade unions. The report in The Sunday Times says:
Turner, … formerly letters editor at the Mirror, sees himself as the champion of working journalists standing up to professional trade unionists more interested in bickering than bylines.
That suggests that some trade unions do not properly serve their members.
We should examine further three areas that need reform. The law calls for a ballot before industrial action can take place, but there should be a period of perhaps a week before a strike can occur. Such a delay is commonly called a cooling-off period, but during that time frustration could grow. My reason for calling for such a period is that

it would enable people to reflect on the effects of what might take place. That could be taken into account by individuals and companies and other groups who could then try to establish how to meet their various needs without resorting to industrial action. That would be of considerable advantage. It seems only fair play to give people a breathing space to adjust their needs.
There could also be reform on the right of people to join a trade union of their choice. This still creates some problems. There are still inter-union rivalries. No doubt some of the new arrangements such as no-strike agreements have developed because they are usually tied up with single union agreements. We know that a number of unions have been involved in some rather unseemly squabbles and that the Trades Union Congress has threatened to expel its largest union, the Transport and General Workers Union, for poaching members from two other unions—the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Union of Public Employees. The desire to join the union of one's choice is not unreasonable. The laws that we have passed over the past 12 years have given trade union members a great number of freedoms and it would be reasonable to give people the right to join the trade union of their choice. That might encourage some to rejoin or join the trade union movement.
The third area where change can take place is the basic area of agreements between trade unions and employers, which at the moment are not enforceable in law. It would not be a bad thing if we moved to a system similar to those of other countries, so that such agreements are enforceable in law, although only with the agreement of both parties. It is odd that many contracts are enforceable in the courts, although people do not always insist on enforcement and may come to a mutual agreement, when this one is not. I cannot see why, as we move into new areas of trade union and employer relations, we cannot make that change.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman talks about agreements being enforceable in law. He may be aware that there was an exchange between the Minister and myself some months ago about the situation at Rolls-Royce, where the management arbitrarily threatened to tear up the contracts of employment of all its employees, without any notification or negotiation. Does he think that such agreements should be enforceable in law? Where a trade union has been recognised as the legitimate negotiating body over many years, but the employer arbitrarily tears up negotiating rights, should that be enforceable in law?

Mr. Stevens: It is open. If we agreed that the contract should be enforceable in law, it should be binding on both sides, not just one. The agreements are made; that is the position, so if they are enforceable one way, they must be enforceable the other. That could protect both employer and employee. Our industrial relations legislation has been intended not only to strike a balance, but to make the employer-employee relationship reasonable and workable, as opposed to one side dominating the other. We have seen too much of that in the past, particularly in the 1960s.
There is room for us to develop trade union law and reform the existing legislation. That would benefit trade unionists and others. Employers would have more concrete arrangements on which to work, especially if agreements became enforceable in law. That would


remove the uncertainty that is still to be found in many industrial disputes: only when they escalate into direct conflict does it become clear what will happen.
If the Government do not introduce such reforms, the Opposition almost certainly would not. Essentially, the Labour party remains dominated by the trade unions. The policies of which we have heard so much—or, perhaps, not enough; we do not know the details—would rely on the union barons to take us forward into the future. Today, the unions sponsor a higher proportion of the parliamentary Labour party than at any time since 1935; that includes the majority of the shadow Cabinet. Since 1981, they have controlled the lion's share of the vote in the election of the party leader. As far as I am aware, the Leader of the Opposition has no plans to alter either arrangement.
In deference to their paymasters, the Opposition have opposed every trade union reform since 1979, including the introduction of pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections. They have not opposed a single major strike in recent years: they did not oppose the miners' strike, the transport strike or the health service strikes. They seem determined to repeal much of the successful and welcome legislation of the past 12 years. Their policies would almost certainly bring about the return of secondary action and flying pickets, and would grant the unions unprecedented legal immunities and privileges. They would be protected by effective sanctions if they broke the law.
Labour's latest document, "Opportunity Britain", still contains policies that would benefit trade union leaders, and the unions continue to influence Labour's policy in many major areas of the economy, training, health and transport. The threat to the economy, productivity and growth is as real as ever. Labour's trade union reforms would almost certainly prove disastrous.
I believe that we need a further step on the step-by-step approach that the Government have taken over the past 12 years to discourage precipitate action and protect third parties that play no direct part in disputes. A cooling-off period following ballots has proved successful in other countries. I also believe that it is time that people had a statutory right to belong to the unions of their choice. That would remove the effects of the Bridlington procedures and take away some of the functions of the TUC.
We should also consider the status of agreements between trade unions and employers. They should be made legally binding, as they are in some other countries. In years to come we shall want to introduce further reforms. During the past 12 years we have passed both major and minor legislation to improve industrial relations. That legislation has proved to be enormously successful. It has also proved to be very popular both within the trade union movement and outside it. We need, however, to do a little more. I hope that the Minister and his Department of Employment colleagues will include some of the points that I have made in their Green Paper. If we do not continue trade union reform in order to improve industrial relations, the Opposition will never do so.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for providing the House with the opportunity to debate this subject. He has raised a number of interesting points and ideas for taking trades union reform forward. He has told us about the work still to be done, but he will probably agree with me when I say that we shall essentially be dealing with fine tuning. We shall have to look at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, adjust it and get it right in the light of developments.
If one looks at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, it is easy to see what a very long way we have come. I refer to pre-strike ballots, ballots for the election of trades union officers, the developments relating to secondary picketing and the outlawing of the closed shop. All this, and a great deal more, forms the pattern of legislation and trades union reform since 1979.
It is not surprising that a pattern of reform such as that should be introduced by a Conservative Government. It very much underpins Conservative philosophy, which is all about making sure that the rights of organisations do not become bigger than their aggregate parts. It is a question of ensuring that major organisations do not lose sight of the fact that if they have been created to serve the interests of their members, that is exactly what they have to do.
It is not surprising that a Conservative Government, not a Labour Government, should have been very keen to ensure that there is proper freedom for members to operate within those organisations and to embark on such a course of reform. The interesting aspect of that course of reform is that it should have been so overwhelmingly popular, as is evidenced by the results of three general elections. It will be common though not comfortable ground between us that whatever other reasons people may have had for voting Conservative at the last three elections, the question of trades union reform has featured significantly and resulted in some people, many of whom were trades union members, voting Conservative for the first time.
The fact that a Conservative Government embarked on such a course of reform and the fact that it has been popular is not, in a sense, surprising. What is surprising, perhaps, is the fact that the Labour party has now decided that it is in favour of these reforms. It is prepared, superficially at least—I stress the word "superficially"—to say not that it has been in favour of these reforms all along, but that for some particular reason, not yet specified, it intends to look at this matter in an entirely different way from the way that it has looked at it in the past.
An interesting feature of our debate is that two questions can be asked. First, is it likely that the Labour party has truly changed its position—has the leopard truly changed its spots? Secondly, is it actually true that it has done so? On the question whether that is likely, it is worth considering the history of the Labour party and what that tells us. To be fair, I ought to make the point that, in view of what I am about to say, I imply no criticism of the Labour party. On previous occasions I have stated the argument in a slightly different way. A debate such as this, however, attended only by aficionados concentrates the mind and makes one behave in an even fairer way than one might otherwise behave.
The point that must be made is that it would be quite wrong to accuse the Labour party of being a mainstream


political party. Nothing in its history or origins gives rise to that supposition. It does not pretend, and I use that word in both senses, to be a popular movement. It cannot pretend to be rooted in the general traditions of this country. It cannot be said to be a popular movement based on ordinary sentiments of common sense and patriotism. Its genealogy is short, obvious and brutish: it was created to be the mouthpiece of the trades union movement. That is what it has been over the years and in a sense, even if we do not particularly like what the mouthpiece says, it is no criticism of the Labour party to say that that is what it is. Much though the Labour party may try to avoid the fact, it is the mouthpiece of the labour movement and of the trades union movement. That is its purpose and why it was created.
We are given to understand that, despite the Labour party's origins and history, all has changed in recent times. We are asked to accept that, because of the dynamism and sheer intellectual force of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party has entirely changed its spots and can no longer be regarded as merely the mouth on a stick of the trades union movement.
Is that likely? We are told that the Labour party has introduced significant reforms to ensure that it will not be dominated by the union movement. The problem is that the most significant of the reforms is due to be made after the next general election, when Labour party policy will be decided, as always, by its conference. Even after the major reforms that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced, 70 per cent. of the votes cast at the Labour party's conference will be the block vote of the trades union movement. That is after reforms have been made to reduce union domination. It is a funny reduction in domination if, after the event, 70 per cent. of the votes to decide party policy are cast by the trades union movement.
In deciding whether the Labour party has changed its position on trades union reform, or is likely to do so, one must consider the sponsorship of Labour Members. They would be the first to correct me if I were to pretend that 100 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party is sponsored by trades unions. Some 33 per cent. of Labour Members are not; only 67 per cent. are sponsored by trades unions.
If that worries Labour Members, they need have no fear, because the shadow Cabinet shows solidarity. Every one of its 20 members is sponsored by the trades union movement. In case any members of the general management committee are lurking up in the gallery, listening to our debates or will study them later, Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen will confirm that all the members of the shadow Cabinet, which is represented here tonight by the second division, are sponsored by the trades union movement.
Even if one were prepared to ignore the raw figures, it is worth considering what some of the reformers say about trades union matters. We should consider the two leading lights and moderates of the labour movement. The views of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—he of the lunchtime offensive—were interestingly described in his house. He spoke of a legal requirement for pre-strike ballots. He described the proposition for pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections—

Mr. Ian McCartney: No, he did not.

Mr. Nicholls: It is interesting that although only four Labour Members have come here to defend their position on the trades union membership, they already know I want to draw to the attention of the House. What does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the hero of the lunchtime offensive, think about trades union ballots? Does he think that they are a useful extension of trades unions' members' rights? Is he pleased that it strikes a libertarian blow? No. He describes it as "an irrelevant effrontery". He went on to say that statutory requirements for ballots were "intellectually disreputable" and that for unions, they would
gravely undermine the effective pursuit of their members' interests."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 170.]
That is from someone who is a leading light in a party which would have us believe that trades union reform is now safe in its hands. That is from a person who, when Labour suffers its next election defeat, will be well poised to take over leadership of the Labour party.
Let us look to the younger generation and put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to one side for the moment. Let us go for the young Lochinvar and look at the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he was trying to describe how he felt about trades union ballots. What did he say about the Bill that made them a reality? He described the ballots as a "shabby, partisan strategy" and as "a disgrace". Just in case he had not made his position abundantly clear at that stage, he said that he saw a ballot as
a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 210.]
That is the reality of the way in which leading lights in the new, revisionist, squeaky-clean Labour party feel about trades union matters.
Every single trades union reform that the Government have introduced since 1979, which the Labour party says is now safe in its hands, was opposed root and branch by the Labour party, often in the most lurid terms. There is not a single major strike that members of the Labour party have opposed in recent times. If one needed to consider for one moment whether it was likely that the Labour party, or the Labour party as it is likely to be constituted in the foreseeable future, could be anything other than a tool and pawn of the trades union movement, one would not have to listen to my words—good idea though that may be. All one has to do is to look at what the Labour party says about itself—[Interruption.] This is one of the occasions on which my innate fairness can bubble to the surface, because in making my point, I have only to quote those who now seek to deny it from sedentary positions.
The answer to the first question—whether it is likely that the Labour party would now change its spots—is that it would not. Even if it is not likely, is it true? It is worth considering four areas in which the Labour party will say, superficially, that it has changed its position. Let us consider the publication "Opportunity Britain". Let us ignore for the moment that a noun has been used as an adjective. In one area of the publication, while proclaiming itself to be squeaky clean, revisionist and modern, the Labour party has managed to pledge itself to go further down a left-wing, trades union road than it has ever done. It now makes it clear in "Opportunity Britain"—on page 39 for those who wish to have a look at its latest policy on these matters—that it would for the first time be impossible for employers to be able to dismiss strikers. It


is a bizarre proposition that, after all possible safeguards, an employer should employ people to work in his concern, yet not be allowed to dismiss them when they decide that their idea of a contract of employment is merely an opportunity to strike. That proposition and that move towards making it impossible to dismiss strikers are so extreme that they were not even adopted by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was in government. That proposition was even too extreme for that right hon. Gentleman. It is a bizarre proposition from the Labour party and far more extreme than anything that a Labour Government have adopted.
It is interesting to discover the position of certain leading lights in the Labour party on ballots. We are led to believe by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the tiger has changed its spots and that the Labour party has been in favour of pre-strike ballots all along. Those who pay the piper call the tune and it is interesting to consider what the trade unions say about—

Mrs. Llin Golding: Tigers do not have spots.

Mr. Nicholls: It is interesting that I am now being heckled. Opposition Members are upset because if they stand in favour of some of the reforms it means that they will go against those who pay the funds of the Labour party.
It is worth considering those who pay the piper, for example, Ron Todd, the recent relatively moderate leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and what he says about ballots. It appears that he is now in favour of ballots for strikes, but he made it clear in an article in The Independent that he does not mind if those ballots are not held until after the strike has been called. It is a odd commitment to pre-strike ballots and ballots generally if one believes that one can have a strike first and perhaps a ballot later. That is what lies behind the Labour party's being in favour of ballots.
What about secondary picketing and sympathy action? It is clear that the public are thoroughly fed up with such action. There are still many people who can remember the chaos to which the country was reduced in the winter of discontent specifically because secondary picketing and sympathy action were allowed. We are now told by the Labour party that slight secondary picketing and slight sympathy action will be allowed. If one considers what the trades union apparatchiks say about that, one sees that it is slightly different from what Labour party spokesmen say.
That great luminary of the trade union movement, and to be fair, its greatest paymaster, Mr. Todd, has made it absolutely clear to those whom he seeks to fund what his position would be. Presumably the Opposition would want to hear about Mr. Todd and the TGWU. After all, many members of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by that union. The Leader of the Opposition is sponsored by that union. They all know where their marching orders come from. When Mr. Todd was asked about how he felt about secondary picketing he said:
We need fair rules on picketing. We need the right to enforce our own rule book
He was speaking to that well-known moderate journal, The Morning Star. That paper said that he went on to stress that his definition of secondary action included the

right to strike in support of those "in unorganised workplaces". Just in case anyone might miss what Mr. Todd thought was a necessary right of secondary picketing and sympathy action, he said:
if you want the bottom line that is it and we'll consider any means of getting there.
That is the true reaction of the Labour party to the restoration of rights on secondary picketing and sympathy action.
One need only consider the tortuous definition that is proposed by the Labour party. It says that it would allow secondary picketing and sympathy action, but that there would have to be mutuality of interest to justify such action. What does that mean in practice? On the BBC programme "On the Record" the hon. Member for Sedgefield admitted that that connection would be there for National Union of Mineworkers' pickets—if there is anyone left in the NUM these days. He said that NUM pickets would be entitled to go out and picket in support of electricity workers. The hon. Member was also able to confirm again that that would mean that National Union of Seamen pickets would have been entitled to bring cross-channels ferries to a halt. It would mean that the TGWU would have been entitled to carry out its threats against Ford, even though those threats prevented substantial investment at Ford at Dundee. Although the headline is that the Labour party now has a responsible attitude on those matters, the small print turns out to mean something else.
When one is trying to form a view on the matter and work out what the situation might be, it is worth looking at what some of the more honest members of the Labour party are prepared to say. The hon. Member who springs to mind is a member of the shadow Cabinet who, whatever his other attributes and characteristics, fiercely speaks his mind, such as it is. He is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is much maligned. We all think of the skit that we often see of the hon. Gentleman on "Spitting Image", which has been unfair to him because, in reality, he is much worse than he is portrayed. It is interesting that when he was asked recently to reflect on the position of the trade union movement in relation to the Labour party he said:
There is no way the Labour party can be distanced from the trade unions"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I am pleased that Opposition Members realise, as all good puppets should, their position in this matter. He continued:
I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind about our alliance with the trade unions. We sit down and discuss our policies and come to agreements before we go to conference. Nobody will be able to break that link.
So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of breaking that link.
Ultimately, the Labour party realises that its position on trades union reform has been a vote loser. Because it is moving into new times, it now goes in for realpolitik. It has suddenly discovered that it is even more in favour of trades union reform than we are. But its structure and funding and the trades unions' say in the framing of its policies show that it is unreal to think that, if it were in office, the Labour party could ever be anything other than it was created to be: the mouthpiece, for better or worse, of the trades union movement. There is nothing wrong or dishonourable with that position. In a sense, it has now


become part of British tradition and is very praiseworthy. However, it becomes less than praiseworthy, and becomes intellectually and historically dishonest, when such a party denies its history and pretends that it will abandon it in the future. There is no evidence whatever for that proposition. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on that fact.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on deciding to debate this subject, although I am at a loss about what he wanted to say. I had been concerned that two good speeches would be spoilt by the hour of the night and the lack of an audience, but events have proved me wrong because two not-so-good speeches have not been spoilt.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We are about to hear another.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister must follow me in whatever form he chooses.
There is little that I can say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) except that he is right in at least one accusation, because the Labour party has no intention of turning its back on its history. Why should we? Our history makes the party what it is and I do not seek to justify our position, because it has been justified many times before. If the charge is simply that we recognise that we hold certain values in common with different sectors of society, the Labour party is and will continue to be committed to the pursuit of those values through the political mechanisms of this place.
As for the subject of this debate on industrial relations in Britain and the need for trade union reforms, may I say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton that there may be a need for a seven-day cooling-off period between Conservative Members coming up with ideas and the publication of Green Papers by the Secretary of State which say, essentially, what is in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That is because the only possible justification for the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton is that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment felt that they might be lucky enough in the ballot to obtain some prime time. Instead, the poor old Minister had to turn up at 5.30 am to justify and possibly throw some light on the debate.
The sad reality is that Conservative Members felt, and still feel, that trade union bashing will give them an electoral bonus. They normally start on the process before a general election. For those who do not already know it, it is a good indication of the fact that a general election is on the way. The unfortunate news for Conservative Members is that the British public do not give trade union legislation a high priority.
A recent opinion poll convincingly showed that 93 per cent. of the public support an employee's legal right, not only to trade union membership but to trade union representation when in dispute with an employer. The public even allow for the concept of an employee being in dispute with his or her employer because they recognise that such things occur.
Some 85 per cent. of the public support the legal right to a minimum wage—something that is advocated by the Labour party and most of the rest of Europe, but scorned by the Government. Some 66 per cent. of Conservative

voters are strongly against the idea of any further legislation to limit trade union rights, which means that 66 per cent. of the supporters of Conservative Members do not believe them when they say that there is a need for further step-by-step, lemming-like moves over the cliff to which the Government would take the country in terms of trade union legislation.
The simple reality is that the British public recognise, as does the Labour party, that industrial relations—far from being one of the Government's successes—contain many sectors in which the Government's policies have totally and abysmally failed. That failure is meted out to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The Government have for many years been in dispute with many international organisations, including the European Community and the International Labour Organisation because of their total failure to provide an industrial relations regime that is seen to be fair on all sides of industry. We know that the International Labour Organisation—the United Nations trade union agency—has condemned the Government roundly and soundly for their abuse of trade unions and trade unionists. It contrasts the Government's concern to prevent what they would describe as the abuse of industrial power with their
lesser concern for the rights of trade unions".
That is absolutely right, because the Government have run away from the concept that employees should have any rights in the workplace.
One of the ILO's most ringing condemnations, from which the Government have constantly run away, is of their decision to ban employees at GCHQ from being trade union members. That issue is still unresolved and we do not hear Conservative Members raise it when they speak of the abuse of the ordinary people of this country. When Conservatives abuse the most vulnerable people, Parliament should draw its own conclusions about the unkind and unpleasant nature of the modern Conservative party.
There has been a denial of the negotiating rights of teachers, which was condemned by the ILO. The Government have refused to take action on the blacklisting of people—[Interruption.] That, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge should know, is common in many parts of British industry. People, simply because of a history of trade union activity—or sometimes not even that—are prevented from obtaining any further employment in those parts of industry because they are deemed to be unacceptable to employers. We saw that in relation to work on the channel tunnel, where active trade unionists were unable to obtain employment. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that an employer should have the right to take into account that a trade unionist may have a history of industrial disruption? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an employer should be obliged to employ such a person? The answer that the hon. Gentleman is groping for is yes, but it would be interesting to hear it from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Lloyd: We have said consistently that blacklisting is an outrageous principle, by which an employer can use his so-called right of hire and fire for narrow and sectarian political and industrial ends.

Mr. Nicholls: The hour is late, but I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman answer my question.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene again? I will give way to him, if he asks politely. The hon. Gentleman's behaviour is not something to which one is normally accustomed in the House, or elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn some of the customs and traditions of the House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can only approve of that.
Blacklisting has been condemned by international bodies such as the ILO. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wants to tell the House that he believes that the ILO and others are wrong to say that blacklisting is an outrageous abuse of human rights, I will listen with considerable interest.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to him a few moments ago? Does he accept that an employer should have the right to refuse to employ a trade unionist who has a history of industrial disruption? The answer is either yes or no.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman chooses to phrase his question in that way, but I repeat that an employer does not have the right to blacklist a person when, in some instances, he or she has not even been an active member of a trade union, and organisations such as the Economic League have got it wrong. The Labour party has already sought, in previous Employment Bills, to make blacklisting illegal.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Lloyd: Not on the same issue, no. I have made it clear where Labour stands. We do not accept the abuse of individual human rights by blacklisting.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge might want to leap up and down in the same hysterical fashion in respect of sympathy action. Again, the ILO condemned the Government for making the concept of sympathy action illegal—particularly where it is associated, as was the case with the notorious Wapping dispute, with a move by the company artificially to split its work force by using the law as a direct weapon against its employees. The hon. Member for Teignbridge has already made it clear that he supports the sacking of workers who strike. He is clearly out of step with international opinion in that respect as well. The Government and their supporters are far from the norms of conventional and decent opinion throughout Europe and the world.
It is claimed that Britain has a successful record in terms of stoppages in industry. Let us be realistic and compare the numbers of days lost through industrial dispute, and the number lost through death and injuries at work.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) accept that the citizens charter should allow the public to know of the secret and often spurious information on their private lives that is held by organisations such as the Economic League, and to correct it where it is wrong? Every individual has an inalienable right to be employed in commerce or industry. Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge share that view—yes or no?

Mr. Lloyd: The reality is that the Government do not agree with that proposition. They have made it clear on numerous occasions that they do not agree with the concept of individual basic human rights at the workplace. They believe that an employer has a right to do what he feels is right in his own interests. The Government's attitude is that if that means trampling down the rights of employees, so be it. That should be evident to anyone who believes in human rights in a free society. The idea that an organisation can store information covertly is a dubious one; the notion that that information should be uncheckable is so outrageous that there is an overwhelming case for banning the activity.

Mr. McCartney: If we accept from the Prime Minister that the citizens charter relates to the public sector rather than the private sector, we must recognise that within British Telecom and British Coal there is a tendency to use organisations such as the Economic League. If someone is employed in the public sector, he will have the rights that are set out in the citizens charter. Surely he should be able to seek out and challenge the information that may be held on him, which might be fallacious. At present there is no right of challenge. An individual's career might be blighted irrespective of whether he agrees with trade unionism. His views on trade unionism could be described as irrelevant in the circumstances.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. I ask the Minister to confirm that part of the citizen's rights will be an entitlement for those who work in the public sector to challenge both the use and abuse by public sector employers of blacklists of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has described.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he is no longer in a position to answer authoritatively for the Government or the Prime Minister, to tell us what will be introduced in the citizens charter. Being ever interested in his views, however, I shall give way to him, but perhaps for the last time in this debate.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman and I have been round this course before. In the context of the debate, perhaps he will remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Government introduced the right of an employee not to be denied employment because of trade union membership. We are talking about an entirely different proposition, and one that obviously escapes the hon. Member for Makerfield. The proposition is not that someone should be denied work because of trade union membership. As I said, the Government have made that an impossibility. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), with his usual cheap remarks and jibes, chooses not to recognise that. He will not give a straight answer to my question, which is whether an employer should be entitled to refuse employment to someone with a history of industrial disruption—not someone who is merely a member of a trade union. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government introduced the right that a person should not be refused work merely because of trade union membership.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman still practises law, but he suggested in his little diatribe that


if a law is passed that gives rights to trade unionists, that makes it impossible to discriminate against trade unionists. He merely demonstrates—

Mr. Nicholls: I did not say that.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard when this exchange appears within it. I think that he will find that my quotation is accurate.
The simple reality is that in Britain there are many who are denied employment only because they are members—not active ones—of trade unions. That is the position in the construction industry, for example, and in other parts of other industries. The Government can pass any law that they like, but unless they are prepared actively to prevent the use of blacklists they merely provide themselves with a fig leaf of respectability—I think that the Minister know this—while failing to give people legal protection. People's lives have been blighted by the actions of vicious employers. Actions have been taken that were designed to maintain a degree of control in certain industries which should not be tolerated in a society such as ours.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton talked about Britain's great success in terms of the present industrial climate. There is a contrast to be drawn between the number of days lost through industrial stoppages and the ever-increasing number of days lost through deaths and injuries at the workplace. That is one of the scandals of our time, and it falls directly on the doorstep of the Government. During recent years, the number of deaths has once again increased. The latest figures available show that some 200,000 people each year are injured in the workplace in Britain. That is a frighteningly high figure. A phenomenal number of people are suffering because of the incompetence and indifference of Conservative Members and the Government whom they seek to support.
The Government have systematically underfunded the Health and Safety Executive and have systematically attempted to drive a wedge between the people at the workplace and the protections that they should be entitled to enjoy in any society that claims to be civilised. If we are serious about a proper industrial climate in a modern economy, a right to healthy and safe working practices is not simply something to be afforded when the economy is put to rights, but something fundamental to our sort of society. It is a fundamental right for our fellow citizens at the workplace.
I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Jan Leadbitter, who died at work recently and whose employer, Bovis Construction, was taken to court. The family contacted me because they were devastated that the company, which has a poor industrial safety record, was fined a mere £1,000 by the court. It is an outrage that a company that allowed one of its employees to die, through its negligence—there is no doubt that it was negligence by the company—was fined only £1,000 by the court, which deemed that to be sufficient penalty. Conservative Members may think that that is a reasonable response by the courts, but we do not. Companies that are irresponsible to the point of allowing their employees to die should suffer penalties considerably greater than that.

Mr. McCartney: A year and a half ago, an 18-year-old constituent of mine was electrocuted and died after a fall. His employer was found guilty in the magistrates court of four offences, for which the highest fine was £400. His

mother and father are devastated and his fiancee's life has been destroyed. Despite its negligence, the employer walked away with a minimum fine.
Because my constituent was killed three weeks after his 18th birthday, his family has no claim in law for compensation. He was deemed to be an adult with no wife or children, yet in reality he lived in a family and looked after his parents. The company offered to pay for the lad's funeral, which cost about £1,500, and then walked away. Had that lad been killed in the street by, for example, a nightclub bouncer, that person would have rightly served 15 years. Because the gentleman concerned calls himself a managing director, he walked away from the court with a £400 fine for negligently killing a person.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Obviously, compensation can never be enough in such cases. What we should be determined upon—but the Government are not—is to make such events so rare as to be exceptional. The sad reality is that there are 623 deaths and 200,000 injuries a year, with probably another 2,000 people dying through work-induced health disorders and about 80,000 people joining the list of those whose health has been ruined in the workplace. For this Government, the health and safety elements are not a priority. While that charge is real and fitting, I say to Conservative Members that every time that they speak about industrial relations, they speak with—

Mrs. Golding: Forked tongues.

Mr. Lloyd: Not only with forked tongues, but with gross hypocrisy.
The Government of law and order are faced with the problem of the 100,000 firms since 1979 that have been found to be illegally underpaying their workers. If the data that I have are accurate, about 1 million people who are covered by the wages councils do not receive the wages to which they are entitled.
The Conservative party, which claims to have respect for the law, has never been strong in defence of those 1 million people or in pursuing employers who are prepared to flout the law. The Government unashamedly do not pretend to support that law. When we know that about 10·4 million people at work are paid below the level of the Council of Europe's decency threshold, we know that Britain has a crisis of poverty wages. The problem will not be resolved by pious aspirations about driving people back into work. That has not happened. Once again, unemployment is increasing massively. That explains why the hon. Member for Nuneaton said that there were fewer industrial stoppages this year than previously.
Low pay is holding back our economy and our fellow citizens. It stops our employers investing in training and in deriving the maximum potential from those at the workplace. The Conservative Government do not aim to crack down on the illegal underpayers. A Labour Government will introduce a minimum wage, as Labour Members have said publicly, and we will ensure that it is used to the advantage of people in the workplace.
Wherever we look, the Government's record on industrial relations bears no comparison to that of the rest of western Europe. The Government are blocking European Community directives dealing with the burden of proof in cases involving sexual discrimination at work, parental leave and working hours.
I shall quote the case of Robert George, a practising Christian, who works for Plant Breeding International in Cambridge, a subsidiary of the multinational firm, Unilever—a name known to every hon. Member here.

Mr. McCartney: That company is a big contributor to the Tory party.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend said, that firm is a big contributor to the Tory party. Mr. Robert George has been working for the company for many years. During the harvest, lasting from July to October, he is expected to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week—an 84-hour week. [Interruption.] The Minister sniffs—I am not sure whether in commiseration with Mr. George or in indifference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my point. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Minister has revealed that he will not respond.
The Government unashamedly blocked the directive on working hours, which would have meant that, for the first time, Britain would come into line with every other country in Europe, bar one, in defining a maximum working week. The Government are not prepared to comment on the case of Mr. Robert George, who is not even able to exercise his right as a practising Christian to take Sunday off. It is a disgrace that that should happen and that the Government are not prepared to investigate the problems faced by that individual and many others because of abuses by big, respectable employers. It is a disgrace that the Government stand alone in Europe in blocking the working hours directive. It is about time that we had a Government who were prepared to put the interests of working people to the fore and to accept directives on working hours that affect the liberty of our fellow citizens.
The Government are out of touch on leave entitlement and the right of workers to be represented at the workplace. Britain is virtually alone, other than Ireland, in having no system whereby the British worker has a right to representation on health and safety issues. On a minimum wage, maternity leave and parental leave Britain is again out of touch. In addition, Britain is blocking a directive which would give rights to part-time workers and it stands virtually alone in Europe in having laws which discriminate against part-time workers.
When the hon. Member for Nuneaton tells us that Britain's industrial relations record is a success he is far from the truth. I accept that he was put up to this debate tonight by a Government who want to maintain their trade union-bashing approach. But millions of people in Britain are suffering under the lousy industrial relations climate that the Government have created. The next Labour Government will be committed to introducing a climate at the workplace which embodies the values of civilisation and which protects those who are abused. The Government want industrial conflict, so beloved of Conservative Members who thrive on it. A Labour Government will ensure that conflict at work is rare and that the British worker will be able to operate in the workplace with dignity.
The Labour party is unashamedly close to the trade unions. It is because we value the role of trade unions in protecting people at the workplace that I stand here

tonight to say that there is a better way than that put forward by the Government. That better way is coming soon.

Mr. Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. I take it that he has the leave of the House to speak again.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. McCartney: I thank hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to speak again. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made tonight on a party-political basis. At the end of the day we can agree or disagree. But in practical terms, industry today provides a clear, unequivocal picture of the modern industrial management structures of companies, whether private or public, that have a real interest in developing a meaningful relationship with the work force.
My constituency is the home of Heinz, the largest food production company in the world. It has the largest food production plant in the world for baby food, soups and other household items which are mainly sold to the largest supermarket chains in Britain.
Some eight years ago it was clear that for Heinz to survive in the marketplace in the United Kingdom and Europe it had to enter into a massive research and development programme. That meant a massive change for the work force and management structures.
The company took the view from the outset that it considered the work force and the trade unions not to be against investment and reorganisation but to be a catalyst for change. During the past eight years there has been a massive change in attitudes in the company to the point where Heinz has not only maintained its market leadership in the food industry but has led the way in showing how trade unions and management can work together to develop, restructure and win new markets at home and in the EC.
Before Ministers start attacking trade unions, they should consider what happens in companies such as Heinz where the management uses the skill of the unions and involves them in a meaningful dialogue about the changes that are necessary. The management also allows the unions to put forward practical solutions to the problems of the marketplace.
After millions of pounds of investment, Heinz recognises that were it not for the role played by the unions in the changes in the company, the advantages that the company has gained in the marketplace would never have happened.
In London and Wigan the shop stewards are principal partners in the changes in the company. [Interruption.] The Minister seems rather fed up with this debate—

Mr. Forth: I have been up all night.

Mr. McCartney: So have we all.

Mr. Nicholls: Give the Minister a chance to reply then.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman spoke for hours and hours, making party-political points.
If the Minister is serious about his interest in industrial relations and in trade unions, I invite him to come to my constituency between now and the autumn and meet the


management and trade unions at Heinz. He could look over the factory, where working relations have been transformed. The management realises that it has to take the unions with it when effecting such multi-million pound transformations. That in turn leads to a better company and to better products. It enables the company to win hands down against European competition.
Heinz has proved that taking the trade unions with the management means a better company and product in the long run. I hope that in the next debate on employment policy we shall not hear from Conservative Members the sort of petty-minded attitudes which we have heard tonight. They are 20 years out of date, and they have no place in the sort of modern industrial society that we have in Britain today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): A new technique has unfolded during this debate: the Minister is given only a few minutes in which to wind it up. Perhaps the House will have to get used to that, but it came as a surprise to me.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to a debate on employment policy. If he had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the debate is supposed to be about trade union reform. That oversight should not surprise us. This morning trade union-sponsored Opposition Members have come trotting along, no doubt at the bidding of their paymasters in the National Graphical Association, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers Union. They have done everything they can to avoid talking about trade union reform. That, too, should not surprise the House.
My hon. Friends, by contrast, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) who initiated the debate, wanted to talk about trade union law and trade union reform. It was sigificant, but not surprising, that Labour Members wanted to talk about almost anything else—deaths and injuries at work, for instance. As usual, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) got his facts wrong and ignored the fact that this country has one of the best records in Europe in that area. Other European countries look to us to establish best practice in health and safety. That was confirmed recently by the Health and Safety Executive's mapping project, which I recommend to the hon. Gentleman.
Again as usual, the hon. Member for Stretford made an inaccurate reference in passing to underfunding of the Health and Safety Executive. He should know by now—I have told him often enough—that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has publicly confirmed that the commission and the executive have the resources that they require to do their job properly.
The hon. Gentleman went on to refer, as he always does, to prosecutions under the wages council regulations. This is yet more evidence that the Opposition are obsessed with the need for prosecutions, completely ignoring the methods used by the Health and Safety Executive and by the wages inspectors—information and persuasion. Those techniques seem alien to Opposition Members, who seem constantly to lust after prosecutions in every possible circumstance. That is a frightening taste of things to come if the Opposition ever get the chance to run the country.
My hon. Friends wanted to talk about industrial relations and their reform and to point to our record of improved industrial relations which, among other things, have led to a flow of inward investment that is second to none and an impressive record of job creation. The Opposition were candid enough to admit that they are still wedded to their minimum wage policy, even though it has been demonstrated over and over again that such a policy would cost the jobs of hundreds of thousands of low-paid people. Perhaps the Opposition have calculated that to force up the pay of some at the cost of jobs of others is a price which they are prepared to pay. The Government are certainly not prepared to pay that price. Our job is time and again to tell the people of this country that whereas a small number of them may benefit in the short term from a statutory minimum wage, a large number of people would lose their jobs and suffer the consequent and disastrous fall in income. The electorate will ponder that between now and the next election.
The hon. Member for Stretford inaccurately tried to tell the House that a recent opinion poll showed that a large number of people were against further limitations on trade union powers. I think that I have quoted him accurately. That signifies a profound misunderstanding by Opposition Members of what the past and, I hope, future reforms of industrial relations are all about. They have nothing to do with limiting trade unions' powers, but are concerned with the enhancement of the role of individual trade union members and members of the public. We want to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and vis-a-vis their leaders. We sought to establish a fair balance between the trade unions and the employers and to protect employers and the public from the abuse of trade union power of the kind that is long behind us, such as the closed shop and the flying pickets.
Opposition Members again raised the spectre of the return of pickets, secondary picketing and violence on the picket line. We have put all that behind us, but apparently the Opposition are undertaking to see its return if they are returned to government.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth: No, because the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford monopolised the debate to the point where I do not have enough time fully to answer the issues that they and other hon. Members have raised. Given the limited time that is left, it would be inappropriate for me to give way.
Employees are free to decide for themselves whether to join a trade union in which they have the right to vote in a secret ballot for the election of leaders. All union members can decide whether to go on strike, and they are free from any threat of disciplinary action. Employers are free to decide whether to recognise and negotiate with trade unions.
Perhaps most importantly, the law protects businesses and jobs against flying pickets, secondary action, unofficial strikes and other abuses of industrial power. All those major advances have been recognised not only by the electorate in the three successive election victories that we have enjoyed, but, perhaps more importantly, by investors from other countries who have flocked to the United Kingdom because of the favourable industrial relations


framework and atmosphere that have been created by the Government. Those investors provide an ever-increasing number of quality jobs in quality companies.
What the Opposition would do is in doubt, and it is time for them to come clean. We had some hints from them about what they would do about the closed shop, secondary picketing, the rights of trade unions over their members and the role of strike ballots. In all these sectors, where we have made such advances, the Labour party either does not want to come clean with the electorate or, if it does, has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to turn the clock back and to restore to trade unions and their leaders the frightening powers and overwhelming role that they had in the dim and distant 1970s. If this is the reality of the Opposition's industrial relations policy, it is truly frightening.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, we are able to get a glimpse of what the Labour party would do if it could. The significance of the debate is that Labour Members have shied away from discussing what they would do with trade unions under the law, and have instead concentrated on irrelevancies and marginal issues. That, if nothing else, shows full well the nature of the Labour party. I regret that the opportunity to explore these issues has been all too brief. I hope that, over the coming weeks and months, the House will have ample opportunity fully to explore what Labour Members have to say about these issues, so that the electorate will see their policies in all their horror.

Economic and Employment Prospects (London)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am always happy to have an opportunity to introduce a debate and generally happy to have one even at this hour of the day. I am returning to an old habit. I had a fallow year last year, but in the two previous years I drew the 4.1 am straw and the 4.21 am straw in the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At least I have moved to a slightly more civilised hour. I welcome the Minister to this early morning debate on London matters, and in particular on economic and employment prospects for Londoners.
This is a debate about the London economy. Colleagues who represent other parts of the country sometimes forget that one reason why the London economy is very important is that it is the area with the largest number of people in it. It is the most populous economic region. It is also the capital city. Sadly, it also has the greatest disparity of wealth. Increasingly, it is becoming two cities.
The figures in a report issued a few weeks ago by the London Research Centre for the London borough grant committee makes it clear that the average gross weekly income of households in Greater London conceals a far wider disparity between the highest and lowest income groups anywhere else. In 1988, the wealthiest 10 per cent. of households received £687·39 a week, more than 12 times as much as the lowest 10 per cent., whose average income was £56·97.
It is unfortunate that, until recently, we had a Prime Minister who did not seem to understand these things, despite representing a London constituency. In her final speech as Prime Minister, in the debate on the motion of no confidence in the Government, when I pointed out that there was one unchallengeable statistic—that during the years of her premiership the gap between the poorest and the richest had widened—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) gave what can only be described as a fatuous answer, which was:
People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."—[Official Report, 22 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 448.]
Nobody would argue that case and it shows how little she understood or cared.
One further complication about London is that it has one of the most diverse communities. It is diverse in terms of age range and background, including ethnic background, language and the rest. Therefore, the London economy has great potential, but tragically, after 12 years of Tory rule, London increasingly is not working.
Let me give a few anecdotal examples before confirming them by means of some Londonwide statistics. My riverside constituency—or part of it—is supposed to be in the docklands corporation area and, as such, the beneficiary of Government goodies over the past 10 years. The corporation was set up 10 years ago this month. Yet some of the last manufacturing industries have closed this year: Paynes tea factory closed earlier this year and Sarsons vinegar factory is closing in a matter of weeks. One of the most established firms in the construction industry—Sir Frederick Snow and Partners, which is about 100 years old and has a worldwide practice—went


into liquidation a few months ago. The construction industry is experiencing increasing difficulties. Jobs in the public service are also being cut: London Regional Transport is cutting its staff and—somewhat embarrassing for the Government—Guys hospital has done the same.
At a lunch with representatives of Price Waterhouse, a leading British accountancy firm and one of the largest employers in my constituency—if not the largest—I learnt that it had had to lay off a good many staff, for the first time ever. Constituents who run businesses complain to me that they are increasingly being priced out by massively escalating rents imposed by, for example, the British Rail Property Board on the one hand and the local authority on the other. A Conservative Member told me the other day that he had never known the position to be so bad that there were a number of shops which could not even be let on this side of the river, down the King's road.
The economic situation is far from good. I have compared the unemployment statistics for March 1983—the month in which I took my seat—with those for the current month. I am sad to report that the figure for Southwark and Bermondsey was 18·6 per cent. in March 1983 and is 18·5 per cent. now. That is hardly a great improvement to show for eight years of Tory Government.
Not only businesses but ordinary London residents are finding life increasingly difficult. The cost of housing is constantly rising. The average rent for a London room or bedsit is now £385 per calendar month. For a one-bedroom flat, the figure is £619; for a two-bedroom flat or house it is £774; for a three-bedroom flat or house it is £974; and for a four-bedroom house it is £1,075. Rents for bedsits, rooms and studios rose by 17 per cent. between November and May. In the same six months, retail price levels, which the Government use in setting housing benefit levels, rose by only 2 per cent.
Let us examine the disparity between those costs and people's earnings. The average rent per week for a bedsit is £76.15. The net income that someone under 18 would need to be able to afford that without recourse to housing benefit is £146·07. Fewer than 50 per cent. are earning that much, and thus able to afford such rents. A couple over 18 living in a one-bedroom flat with a weekly rent of £143·25 would need a net income of £278·30 to pay for it. Only half those living in the capital could afford that. The average rent of a one-bedroom flat for a single pensioner is £143·25 and that pensioner would need an income of more than £269. Not surprisingly, fewer than 10 per cent. of London's pensioners could pay that.
Those who have bought their homes have stretched themselves to the limit to take out mortgages. Record repossessions have resulted from their inability to keep up the payments. As those of us who served on the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill predicted, housing benefit did not keep pace with those developments, and there is an increasing disparity between the rents of available properties and the housing benefit that would enable people without sufficient incomes to pay those rents.
Fares and prices generally in London are higher than elsewhere in the country. Thames Water rates have escalated enormously. London holds the record for the highest poll tax. Business rates in London are substantial. More and more people come to see me, having been served with summonses, with the bailiffs threatening to come to

their door. When I hold a surgery, more people come to see me now than ever before. More people are in economic difficulties than ever before.
One of the blackest trends is that unemployment has been mounting increasingly for over a year. Ten of the 30 constituencies with the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom are in Greater London. Four of the top 10 in London include, I am sad to say, my own constituency. About 6,500 people in my constituency are registered as out of work. About 320,000 in Greater London are registered as unemployed. There are patches in my constituency—the area around the Elephant and Castle, for example—where unemployment is over 25 per cent. There has been an increase in unemployment in the London Docklands development corporation part of my constituency. In some areas it amounts to over 25 per cent. The age groups affected are those under 25, or those between 25 and 35.
There are always some chinks of light. The London chamber of commerce, in its quarterly economic trends survey published on Monday, said that there were some improvements and that
36 per cent. of service-sector companies now predict that profits will increase in the next 12 months, compared with 26 per cent. in the last quarterly survey.
However, those companies make it very clear that they want and need interest rate reductions if they are to improve their business. They also say that jobs are now being lost at a faster rate in manufacturing companies than in service sector companies. The London chamber of commerce says that a total of 62 per cent. of manufacturers reported a fall in domestic orders in the second quarter and that 89 per cent. of businesses are now operating below full capacity, compared with only 81 per cent. in the previous quarter. The proportion of manufacturing employers reporting an overall reduction in staff rose from 41 per cent. in the first quarter to 52 per cent. in the second quarter of the year. The London chamber of commerce, concludes the article yesterday in the Financial Times, predicts that
London will continue to suffer disproportionately from job losses.
The reality is that the economy in London is not in good shape. There are very few signs of encouragement. There are very few signs that the recession is bottoming out and that things are getting better.
One of the things of which the Government claim that they are proudest is that they have chosen London as the flagship for their inner-city initiatives. In 1981, during the first term in office of the Secretary of State for the Environment, they chose to set up the London Docklands development corporation. Earlier this month there was a great beano to celebrate the establishment of the LDDC in 1981. There was, however, some subtle disinformation about the success of that venture. In the press release that was published to mark the first 10 years of the LDDC the claim was made that by the end of the century,
jobs in London Docklands will increase from the present 53,000 to over 200,000.
The press release continued:
This compares with 27,000 when the LDDC began its work in 1981.
The reality, according to the Government's own answer, given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), on 8 May 1991, at column 520, is that the figures do not come to the same total. He says that there are about 48,000


permanent jobs and just under 5,000 temporary jobs, of which about 41,000 have become available since 1981. The majority of those—almost 25,000—are not new but relocated jobs. Fifteen thousand jobs have been lost and if one disregards temporary jobs, in the past 10 years the number of permanent jobs in docklands has therefore reduced. That is not a record of which the Government can be proud.
The Government have tried various measures. There have been plenty of programmes and initiatives, such as urban programmes, city grants, task forces, city action teams, city technology colleges, opted-out schools and opted-out hospitals. Some of them have had some success. In addition, Ministers were appointed not long ago to oversee seven inner cities—the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) was made Minister for London—but, as an editorial in The Times said about them on 20 April last year,
They have sunk without trace.
Sadly, the majority of the Government's initiatives have equally not succeeded. London has as many problems now as it had 10 years ago. New houses have been built and more are being built now than in recent years, but few are being built for rent, and many that were built to buy are still empty. There is much concern that if the docklands corporation is winding down, much of the social infrastructure, which is supported by Government and local authorities, will be lost. Day nurseries, creches, the Surrey docks farm in my constituency, youth centres and adult education classes are a source not only of social cohesion but of employment and training.
We have a terrible housing crisis. To show how ridiculous the housing policy for London is, I cite but one example. A constituent of mine who could not be housed by the local authority moved into private rented accommodation in a "Quality Street" home just off St. James's road. She moved there with her children. Her fiancéreturned from duty with the Army in Germany. If he went to live with her—he wanted to do so because they wanted to marry and be together again—she would have to forfeit the housing benefit that she received. He has moved back in and if he works, which he wants to do, they risk losing their benefit. The rent will be more than they can afford. They are likely to lose their home and as a result will be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or a hotel at best, if not worse. Any housing policy that offers people a disincentive to work is not compatible with getting our city working again.
We have reached a crisis in the way in which we look after and provide for young people. I put that point to the Prime Minister during Question Time the other day. Massive cuts have been made in the budget of the youth service in all London boroughs. Cuts have been as high as 50 per cent. in Haringey, 25 per cent. in Hackney and £1·5 million in Southwark. Without a properly funded youth service, the prospect of adequately providing for the needs of young people will be reduced and the chance of their moving to criminality will be increased. The crime figures are increasing.
The Government cannot claim to have a wonderful record on providing for the skills of young people. I quote the Financial Times of 14 March 1990. The article says:

The Thatcher Government has not achieved a significant increase in staying-on rates which remain low by international standards. Academic achievement"—
I remind the House that this is after 10 years or more in office—
is unimpressive. Only about 30 per cent. of 16-year-olds gained the equivalent of five or more good GCSEs while just 16 per cent. of 18-year-olds gained two or more A-levels. The number of apprenticeships has fallen since 1979—apparently by almost two thirds in manufacturing. At the same time, only a tiny proportion of YTS graduates have gained worthwhile vocational qualifications. Around a third of 16 to 19-year-olds received no education or training.
The current state of youth training is almost disastrous. A central London careers officer is quoted in this month's "Youthaid" working brief publication as saying that "July and August" is the "crazy season" in the careers service with no work and "no YT places". The mismatch between youngsters going to look for training or employment and the number of vacancies is becoming increasingly embarrassing. In employment exchanges—I went recently to my local one—the ratio between applicants and jobs is about 45:1. In some employment offices and jobcentres, the ratio is 70:1. People are desperately looking for youth training places. For many of them, there is none available. Unless the Government put significant new funds into the training and enterprise council programme and into youth training, those young people will go without the training or skill which, I remind the House, the Government have guaranteed that they should have.
What is needed? I and my colleagues in the House believe that we have to start by getting the economic strategy right and by getting the fundamentals of the British economy in order. That requires one to do fundamental things, such as cutting interest rates. We must ensure that we have a proper fiscal policy that encourages growth. We must invest in the sectors of the economy which desperately need investment, such as education and training. Unless we do that, we shall not be able to get the economy going again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) set out succinctly a summary of proposals in his speech on the Budget. We proposed that almost £2 billion should go into education, training and child care, and £1 billion or more into public transport. In London, that would include a fast link to the channel tunnel and an increase in the London Transport external financing limit. We proposed a £1 billion package for business, including legislation to tackle the late payment of bills. We said that a transitional relief scheme was needed for the uniform business rate. We proposed a package for jobs, particularly jobs that are environmentally friendly.
The country and London need such an investment package. Without such a strategy, the economy of London will not recover. We need a regional strategy, too. One cannot have a regional strategy without a mechanism for delivering it. We are more certain than ever that, without co-ordination of economic regeneration policy by a Londonwide authority, we shall never get the capital city moving again.
We need to deal with the disparity of income to which I alluded. That can be done only by a decent citizen's income to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor does not increase, but decreases. We need to ensure that there is a series of measures to encourage enterprise, training and the rest. At our conference in Nottingham in the spring Liberal Democrats approved the establishment of regional development agencies to stimulate and


encourage regional economic activity. We proposed local development agencies as a method for injecting extra resources from outside the area. We proposed the decentralisation of local authority services. We have to ensure that the political, democratic process is the vehicle through which economic regeneration happens.
We need more money in vocational training. We need to ensure that there is a better link—there are some good examples—between education and jobs. We must ensure that there is a bias towards those who find it difficult to obtain work, for example, those with disabilities. Child care provision is needed by many women who would like to get back to work. We need to help those from the black and ethnic minorities who are, according to all the statistics, the most discriminated against in terms of their economic and employment opportunities.
We will be unable to fulfil those needs unless people have adequate housing in which to live at a cost they can afford. That is why we believe that housing cost relief should be introduced. Mortgage tax relief should be abolished and replaced by a more equitable system. We must ensure that a new form of funding is introduced through an intermediate level of rented accommodation.
We must deal with our skills shortage. Walworth school in my constituency has converted its top floor into something called the "world of work". That teaches secondary school pupils how to prepare for the world outside and it does a good job. Yesterday a training and access programme whereby one can obtain information from a machine in the shopping centre in Surrey Quays was opened. Such initiatives are good, but they are not sufficient unless we have an economic strategy to back them up. Unless we undertake co-ordinated economic planning we will not succeed.
The transport system of the capital city must deliver people to and from work without frustration and often delay. The London chamber of commerce and the Confederation of British Industry have made it clear that our reduced efficiency and reduced ability to compete with other nations is the price we pay for the congestion of our capital city.
In the short term we must introduce an urgent package of measures to bring jobs to the capital city. If that does not happen we will pay the price not only in terms of increasing poverty, homelessness, poor health and increased expenditure on social security, but in terms of bad morale. It will also lead to a capital city that looks increasingly dirty, tacky and in poor repair. One cannot have a successful citizens charter if those citizens do not have the ability to earn a decent wage with which they can enjoy the services, public and private, in relation to which the charter seeks to give them rights.
We must have immediate economic activity, stimulated by the Government, to bring jobs to the capital city. We could invest in housing, school buildings and hospitals. We could do that in a practical way by reducing the controls on capital receipts and relaxing the controls on local government by exempting some of its activities from capping. We could employ a large number of people in energy conservation activities to make our homes better insulated and draught-proof. We could put more money into the training and enterprise councils so that they can provide a much more wholesome and wide-ranging service. We could second people by transferring them from employment to train people who are not in employment.
We could put money into seedcorn businesses through loan guarantee schemes and business expansion schemes. We could help businesses by giving them a statutory right to interest after 30 days so that they are not increasingly in trouble because of the late payment of bills. We could also give those businesses the power to enforce more effectively the payment of their debts. We could give local authorities the opportunity to be much more effective generators of wealth.
If we do all those things, our capital city stands a chance of taking its place in the post-1992 Europe. If we do not, many of the jobs and economic benefits of a united Common Market will go to Frankfurt, Paris or even Glasgow or Birmingham.
In my time in the House I have never felt that, in one respect, London risks going back to the dark ages that prevailed a decade ago. But it seems that economic history could repeat itself. Crime is rising, and youth crime in particular. Racial tension is increasing and the British National party is finding it easier to recruit and is working harder at it. The tension between the traditional long-standing communities—principally white, and including the Irish as well as the British—and the more recently established communities is growing. It is growing because there are not enough jobs and houses for both, so people are feeling aggressive and defensive. The police will confirm that the number of incidents of racial violence and threats is growing in our capital city.
One reason why so few people vote Conservative in a constituency such as mine—this goes back to before the war—is that they realise that, although the Conservatives may promise much for the inner city, the minority will obtain the majority of the benefit while the majority will remain relatively as poor as ever. Many will continue to struggle because the goodies simply do not trickle down as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and her advisers thought that they would. That is not to say that my constituents have not been failed by others, too.
After 12 years of this Government, London's economy is in a bad way. On balance, the Government's initiatives have not rescued the capital city or prepared it for the 1990s, let alone the next century. Unless they realise what is needed soon, Londoners will have to look elsewhere for an economic agenda that will meet the job. My hon. Friends and I offer an agenda that will give London and Londoners the opportunity to get back to work.

Mr. Henry McLeish: This is an important subject and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on selecting it for debate.
In a sense, our capital city is in crisis. The economy and employment structure of the city are also in crisis. Twelve years of economic mismanagement have been added to in the past year by a unique recession that was horn in Downing street and is not shared by any of our European competitors. The debate is also about a capital city in which one in seven of the population lives. It is at the centre of the world's financial services and it makes an enormous contribution to Britain's wealth and production. Naturally, it is rich in traditions and in the history of democracy and government and still stands as a beacon throughout the world. Therefore, it is worth fighting for.
I wish that the same could be said of the Government. London is now experiencing circumstances created in the past 12 years by deregulation, deskilling and the casualisation of much of the labour market. We cannot afford that to continue, especially as we move toward the challenges of the late 1990s. The Government cannot be trusted with London's economy or the employment prospects of Londoners in the next few years.
London is also suffering from the unfettered free market excesses in which the Government indulge and from which they try to take credit. In the mid-1980s the capital experienced a boom but it has also experienced the ravages of the current recession. They are made much worse by the fragility and vulnerability of an economy created by 12 and a half years of Conservative Government.
It is important to catalogue some of the reasons why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and many others feel anguished about what has happened and are apprehensive about the future.
A key statistic that must be thrown into the debate is that of unemployment. In Greater London in the past year of the Government's term of office, unemployment has risen since June 1990 from 199,267 to 329,524—an increase of 130,257, or a 65 per cent. growth in unemployment. That speaks volumes about the misery created for individuals and their families, the waste of skills and the capacity lost in both the services and manufacturing industries over that period.
As we are talking about the party of "sound economics" and "economic competence", Londoners will want to know that the current bill for unemployment—the cost to the Treasury in benefits and lost receipts—is a staggering £2·5 billion. That is the cost to Londoners and the country of the Government's incompetence. Over the past year, from June 1990 to June 1991, the Government have added almost £1 billion to the price that we are paying for unemployment, which gives a new resonance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comment that unemployment is a price well worth paying. That price is often measured in human misery, and is now also being measured in financial terms. That dents the Government's capacity to preach, as they frequently do, that they are the Government of sound finances.
The other issue often raised by the Government is their employment record. If we consider the Government's record on employment growth in London from 1981—when we were first able to obtain the statistics—Nye find that only 69,000 more people have been working in London during the past decade, of whom 34,000 have double jobs. Another 29,000 people occupy training places. If one subtracts the double jobbers and the training places from the civilian work force in employment, one discovers that in the United Kingdom's capital city only 6,000 more people are in work now than in June 1979, which is simply deplorable. No self-respecting Government could present that record to the people of the capital and suggest that it was a success.
Another key indicator of the labour market is the number of people chasing every vacancy. We have interesting statistics to show the results of Government failure over the decade. In London, in January 1980, 2·3 unemployed people were chasing every vacancy. In March

1991, 26·2 unemployed people were chasing every vacancy. That is a massive rise of more than 1,000 per cent. in the number of people chasing jobs in the capital city. Is that a record of which the nation can be proud? Is it a record of which the Government can be proud? I hardly think so. Once again, we find that employment growth is a myth. Vacancies have slumped dramatically, and more and more Londoners are in the agonising position of chasing fewer and fewer jobs. That can never be a record of success.
It is more important to consider what is happening now in the capital city. In our surveys of job losses over the past year—we have carried out quarterly surveys—we find that the south-east has lost almost 80,000 jobs, and we think that that figure is only 50 per cent. of the total. What a catalogue of misery and failure there is in London: 150 jobs have been lost at Ford of Dagenham, 100 jobs have been axed at BBC television in London, 600 jobs are to go at Lewisham hospital trust, 550 jobs are to go at Marks and Spencer in London, 34 jobs are to go from Mirabeila magazine in London, 435 jobs have been lost at Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals, 430 jobs have gone from Riverside health authority, 500 jobs have been axed from Rolls-Royce cars in London.
The story goes on and on. Is there no end to the misery that Londoners must experience before the Government start to take seriously not only the capital's economic problems but, more important, those of the nation—from which we cannot divorce the economy of London, which has been hardest hit by a combination of mismanagement and recession?
The Conservatives will never face up to the fact that, in a modern economy, one cannot pursue a policy that allows unfettered free market excesses to co-exist with poor skills and low investment in technology and capital equipment. That is a recipe for chaos. Sadly, chaos and crisis are facing not only London's economy, but the people of London.
If we need a reminder of how badly out of line we are with other G7, OECD and Community states, we need look no further than the OECD's July report, which shows that the United Kingdom's gross domestic product fell 2·5 per cent. between the first quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. In comparison, GDP in Germany is growing by 5·2 per cent., in France by 0·9 per cent., and in Japan by 5·9 per cent. It cannot be claimed that Britain's recession is shared by other developed countries. That myth has been propagated by the Government to ease the concern felt by their supporters and others in London, who believe that the Government can still deliver. However, their track record proves that they can never deliver what the capital needs.
The OECD report shows also that unemployment in the G7 countries as a whole will rise from 17·2 million in 1990 to 19·7 million in 1991, and that Britain will account for one third of that increase. What a reflection that is on the British economy when measured against the six other most productive and wealthiest nations on earth. Why is it that after 12 years of Conservative government the statistics suggest that one third of G7's unemployment burden will fall on London and the rest of the United Kingdom?
According to the OECD's report, the Government are breaking another record, because in terms of investment, growth and employment, Britain has not only been at the bottom of the league for the past two years but is destined to occupy the lowest place in the league table for the two


years ahead. That makes four years of the most unenviable economic record of any country in G7, the European Community or the OECD.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will mention the macroeconomic dimension, because that clearly influences prosperity and development in the country as a whole, and has a major bearing on the capital over the next few years.
London is facing a whirlwind of the factors I described. Londoners want to know what the Government intend to do about the problems which they identify but which the Government are no longer willing to acknowledge. What steps do the Government intend to take to invest in Britain's productive economy or to reverse the massive national cuts in training budgets that are hitting the capital particularly badly?
What do the Government intend to do about the youth training guarantee, which is now a shocking indictment of the Government's couldn't care less attitude? The Government offered every 16 and 17-year-old a place on youth training, and the London boroughs and the London training and enterprise councils are anguished because they cannot deliver the necessary volume of places with current Government financial commitments. Equally, they cannot deliver any quality in YT because their budgets are stretched to the limit as they attempt to provide volume. That is another problem which the Minister should examine, because it has a bearing on the future of skills in London and on the prospects of young people to be able to exercise opportunities to gain the skills that their fathers and grandfathers had before them. The Minister must tell us why a generation is being let down in the capital.
It is clear that we need real solutions to real problems. We can no longer trust the Government to indulge themselves with the unfettered free market and its excesses. We can no longer allow them to indulge in economic mismanagement on a grand scale. We also cannot allow the Government to get away with suggesting that we are faced with a unique recession that is part of a worldwide phenomenon which they can do little about.
We need sustainable low interest rates that give certainty to industry so that it can invest in the productive economy and thus create jobs. We need to use the tax system to promote investment and innovation. We need to have a legislative framework to ensure that employers invest in skills. We can no longer leave everything to the whims of the market or leave employers to invest if they think fit. There should be a partnership between the nation and industry and between industry, young trainees and adult trainees. We must move forward together. We need, above all, a partnership economy in which the Government, the unions and employers work together.
We can look to Germany, to France and, increasingly, to Italy—Japan is different for cultural reasons—and we can see success born of partnership, of investment and of a national desire to seek consensus on our way forward in the 1990s. We need, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, regional devolution for parts of the United Kingdom, including London. That would allow the capital once again to have a voice at the top table on matters that are important to it.
I have set out the real solutions that the nation and the capital need. I challenge the Minister to say whether the Government intend to continue to con the capital or whether they will introduce a new industrial strategy in the 1990s that will help Britain and London.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): It is always a pleasure to have debates with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), even at this ungodly hour of the morning. It is a pleasure also to debate matters with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whom I have recently been getting to know as he speaks from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is an old sparring partner. I look back with pleasure on our past encounters. He offered us a sober analysis of London and its problems, and the Government welcome the opportunity that he has given us to debate London and its problems, even though we do not share his conclusions.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). He described as fatuous her comment on the problems of inequality. On the contrary, she expressed very well the classic dilemma of the problem of income redistribution. There is a choice between a degree of inequality leading to incentive and greater wealth creation—in other words, a system where there is a higher standard for all with wider differentials than there would otherwise be—and a policy of equality that leads to a diminution of incentives, and less wealth creation, the end result being a lower standard for all with narrower differentials between the better off and the less well off. That is the classic dilemma which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley expressed correctly. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants to see how those choices work, let him compare eastern Europe and western Europe, and East Germany and West Germany as they once were, which exemplify the choice that my right hon. Friend was describing. His remarks about fatuity were wrong and unjust and could be retorted on his own comments on the matter.
The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central expressed their concern about unemployment in London. It is no secret that over the past year unemployment has been rising faster in London and the south-east than in some other parts of Britain. However, that rise has been from a very low base, so the unemployment rate in London is still below the United Kingdom average. We must put unemployment in London in perspective. It is 15·9 per cent. lower today than its peak of 396,400 in June 1986. Long-term unemployment in April 1991 was 70,894—56·2 per cent. lower than it was at its peak in January 1986, when the figure was 161,817. That reflects real progress.
Despite what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said about the growth in employment, the fact is that employment in London has grown. In March 1991, the latest available date, London's civilian work force in employment was 122,000—that is 3 per cent.—higher than in March 1983, and it includes a 55 per cent. rise in self-employment. The hon. Gentleman chose a different base year from the one that I have chosen, so the argument is really about which is the appropriate year.

Mr. McLeish: I accept that we can all be selective about the periods for which we produce statistics. However, the Minister must surely accept that we are comparing the Government's record, so that record must start in June 1979. Does he accept that in London in January 1980 the


number of people unemployed was 104,000, and that it is now almost 300,000? That is a significant increase measured over the 12 and a half years of Tory Government. How can the Minister defend that?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was fair in saying that we should look at the year in which a Government take office. However, there are different stages in different economic cycles. From a political viewpoint it might be appropriate to compare 1979 with 1991, but if we want to compare like stages in the economic cycle a different choice of base year is appropriate, and that is what I did.
There is every reason to believe that activity in the Greater London area will pick up once the overall economy bottoms out of the recession. We must accept that any reduction in unemployment will lag a little behind that upturn in economic activity. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was fair in observing, there are signs of recovery. He referred to the London chamber of commerce quarterly economic trends survey, which has just been published, and which shows that the rate of decline in the London service sector is slowing and that there are signs of economic recovery and confidence. Some 36 per cent. of the service sector companies predict that profits will increase during the next 12 months compared with 26 per cent. who thought so in the last quarterly report.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked for a further reduction in interest rates. He was joined in that by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who was pleased to introduce into the debate what he called the macroeconomic dimension, and he wanted me to comment on that. Of course the Government want to bring interest rates down, and we have done so by 4 per cent. over the past six months. Hon. Members must question the compatibility of the drive to reduce interest rates with the commitment—which the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties share with the Government—to membership of the exchange rate mechanism and to a parity of DM2·95 to the pound. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats add to that a commitment to move to the narrow band. The Government are also interested in doing that, but the Liberal Democrats are especially strong in emphasising it.
What is the compatibility between the acceptance of that discipline by the major Opposition parties and what is being said about the rapid and precipitate reduction of interest rates? The fact is that those commitments to the ERM and to the parity within it limit our freedom of manoeuvre on interest rates, and hon. Members must accept that.
The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central must also consider the implications for this exchange rate commitment of the plans that they have described for increasing public expenditure dramatically. Their policies do not add up. I do not think much of the "new economic agenda" of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, as he was pleased to describe it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One could criticise the amount that my colleagues and I suggest on the ground that it is too little rather than too much, even though the difference between us and the Labour party is that we are prepared

to ask people to pay 1p in the pound extra on basic income tax to fund the education and training component. I do not believe that it is valid to criticise on the ground that it is too rapid an injection of additional investment. If anything, given the extent of the economic need, it might be too slow, which might be a more valid criticism.

Mr. Jackson: Whether it is too much or too little must be determined in relation to the overall commitment that the hon. Gentleman and his party have made to ERM and to parity within it. The market will judge whether it is too much or too little. I am sure that the market will conclude that the scale of the increase in public expenditure that both parties urge is inconsistent with that commitment. There would be a perceived loss of control of the public finances, causing a fall in parity and a return to rising inflation and undoing all the work that we have done.

Mr. McLeish: rose—

Mr. Jackson: I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. In the interests of debate, I happily give way to him.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the policies of my party. Skills training is a key aspect of investment. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the 1990s we need increased productivity and growth in all the sectors of the economy? The supply-side initiatives of other countries are much sharper than ours—their investment is leveraged and targeted and they can see returns. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's cuts in training are counterproductive because they will not lead to the skills base that we require or to our having the qualified people whom we need? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that any sensible Government should spend more on that key aspect?

Mr. Jackson: I was going to comment on training, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course the Government believe that investment in training is important. That is why, since we came into office in 1979, we have increased by two and a half times in real terms the amount of spend on training and vocational education. That is a significant increase.
There is a certain element of "fatuity" in the debate, to use the word of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. One must recognise that the skills base and investment in it are not achieved by the Government alone. In 1986, the Department of Employment conducted a survey of training funding, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has seen. That survey clearly established what one would have expected to be the case if one thought rationally about it—that the vast bulk of the investment in training is made by employers or their work force. Quoting from memory, in 1986 the Government spent about £7 billion a year on training, most of it in the form of tax concessions to employers; individuals spent about £7 billion a year, most of it being lost income of students while studying—I do not know whether I regard that as a cost, but the economists did so—and employers spent £18 billion a year.
Anyone who is seriously interested in the amount spent on training should consider employers' investment in it. We have lots of evidence that that investment has been increasing, including evidence that it has been holding up in the present recession. The Confederation of British


Industry surveys of industrial behaviour show that a much larger number of companies are increasing their investment in training than are decreasing it. During the 1980s, there was substantial investment by the Government and employers in training, and that is significant for the 1990s.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister accept that any investment must be measured in terms of return? If we are to believe the figure of £18 billion investment by employers, which we do not, we would be spending roughly twice as much as the Germans, in which case, would not the Germans be getting a far better return on their investment than we are? If we are talking about all that investment being ploughed into the British skills base, why do we still have no coherent system for 16 to 19-year-olds and why do we have a poverty of programmes for the unemployed, with 20 per cent. of British employers spending nothing on training and 52 per cent. of employees receiving no training—figures from the same report that the Minister quoted?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks knowingly about the German spend on training, but there is no equivalent figure on training from the Federal Republic of Germany. No OECD country has carried out a survey as thorough and far-reaching as our 1986 funding study. That is why it is difficult to make international comparisons in this area. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that so far as one can judge, compared with all other Governments, the British Government's spend on training in 1986 was relatively high. But the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make that judgment about the scale of spend between Britain and Germany because the German figures are not as complete as ours.
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make the point that if one looks at the outcome of training—he is right that that is the bottom line; we do not train for training's sake but for the return—one of the most interesting points is that during the 1980s the rate of growth in the British economy significantly exceeded that of, for example, Germany, and other countries which, historically, have a better training record than we have. That suggests that one must recognise that training is only one of a number of inputs into improvement in productivity in the economy. That would lead one to consider the other factors and they would include such considerations as industrial relations, the ability of management to manage and all those kinds of considerations which Opposition Members tend to overlook for the obvious reason that their commitments are all designed to make it more difficult for those factors to be improved.
Just as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey betrayed a certain lack of grasp in his economic analysis and incoherence between his exchange rate commitments and his spending and interest rate plans, so the same can be said of the hon. Member for Fife, Central and his comments, particularly on recession, which he described in that part of his speech devoted to the macroeconomy as being unique to the United Kingdom. Has the hon. Gentleman read the OECD report from which he quotes? I strongly suspect not. Has he read the conclusions of the G7 summit—they are shorter and may be easier to read—where he will find that the different member states around the table only a few days ago here

in London were talking about the recessions affecting their economies and welcoming the signs of a recovery from those recessions?
The hon. Gentleman talks about unemployment rates, but a number of other western European countries have significantly higher unemployment rates than ours. Spain has an unemployment rate of 15·4 per cent. and in Italy, France and the united Germany unemployment rates are considerably higher than ours. The rate of rise in unemployment in the United States and Canada is greater than ours. There has even been a rise in unemployment in recent months in Japan. The hon. Gentleman has got the world economy completely wrong.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that other countries have higher unemployment rates than Britain, but he must now amplify the comments of the Chancellor by saying what he believes is an acceptable rate of unemployment in Britain. It is not the implicit message of Government speeches that the present rate of unemployment is acceptable, unless the Minister is now saying that such is the unimportance of high unemployment relative to reducing inflation that such a rise is acceptable. What is the acceptable unemployment figure either nationwide or in London that the Minister would commend as part of the Government's economic strategy?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks glibly about acceptable levels of unemployment. There is not a great deal that the Government can do about them. The hon. Gentleman should compare notes with his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) with whom I had a discussion on the radio the other day in which he used a phrase that I am happy to echo. He said that there was no miracle cure for unemployment. There is indeed none. Unemployment rates are determined by millions of independent decisions being taken in pay bargaining in firms across the country.
In a nutshell, the most recent figure for wage rises was 8·25 per cent. Inflation is falling rapidly, towards 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Productivity increases in this phase of the recession are about zero, or perhaps even below zero. People are pricing themselves out of work. The Government cannot control that process—unless the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is advocating a return to incomes policies. But the consensus emerging in the House is that such policies are not feasible propositions, irrespective of their merits, in the modern economic climate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The vast majority of workers are not pricing themselves out of work; they are accepting relatively low wage settlements. If anyone is setting a bad example of pricing themselves out of work it is the people at the top end of the market—

Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The leaders of the unions.

Mr. Hughes: They are less reprehensible than the leaders of industry. We heard the boss of the post office workers union mention a figure of £40,000 as his salary on the radio yesterday—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not bad.

Mr. Hughes: Not as bad as what the chairmen of the water industry have awarded themselves. The pressures, in


any case, do not come from people pricing themselves out of work. The London chamber of commerce has made the point that one of the greatest pressures on jobs comes from the Government's interest rate policy and from the other economic levers under their control. They are far more influential than the levels of wage settlements.

Mr. Jackson: I enjoy seminars of this kind, even at this time in the morning, but the hon. Gentleman must be serious. The fact is that although many people are accepting lower increases in wages—perhaps even reductions in wages—averages are always derived from figures above and below a line. The present average settlement is about 8·25 per cent.—well ahead of productivity increases and inflation. People are being priced out of work.
The hon. Gentleman says that all this is the Government's fault because it has to do with interest rates. Obviously, they play their part, but all parties are committed to the exchange rate mechanism and to parity within it. It imposes limitations on each and all of us—on the extent to which we can reduce interest rates. So other factors bear on interest rates and it is not possible to reduce them more rapidly than we are reducing them, in the light of the probable market response to doing so.

Mr. McLeish: Is there any measure on which the Government are willing to stake their record? In the past 12 and a half years, unemployment has doubled—a key measure of success or failure. Vacancies have slumped. Are they a measure of success or failure? Only the equivalent of 166,000 full-time jobs have been created in 12 years. Are they the measure? Despite what the Government say, our skills base is still not up to the standard of that of the Germans, the French or the Japanese. Is the Minister prepared to admit that the Government have failed on any of these counts? There is certainly no miracle cure for unemployment or the problems of the labour market, but how long do we have to wait? The Chancellor has talked of vague stirrings. Will the Minister predict when the recession will bottom out and improvement will begin?

Mr. Jackson: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman join the ranks of those who say that there is no miracle cure. I shall probably have future opportunities to remind him of that. Some people sagely and soberly nod their heads and say that there is no miracle cure, then chant some mantra and attempt to produce rabbits from a hat as if there was a miracle cure. We have strayed from the terms of the debate.
The most significant measures of economic success, at least in a liberal economy but not with a capital L, are the increases in per capita income and wealth. By those measures, Britain did well in the 1980s and our record stands comparison with that of other countries. The economy is now much stronger than it was in the late 1970s. That is generally recognised throughout the world and the Opposition should also recognise it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should not have interrupted so often with general points about economic policy. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, lest he tempts me to stray from the straight and narrow path.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was extremely critical of the London Docklands development corporation, and was quite wrong. When the LDDC was created the underlying trend was of a sustained loss of dock-related industry. The hon. Gentleman spoke graphically about jobs in the area in recent years. About 150,000 jobs were lost in the five relevant London boroughs in the preceding two decades. There was no diversity in the local economy and there was fast-rising local unemployment. The LDDC dramatically turned the tide and created the conditions for employment. That process is not yet complete, because it has largely been a matter of developing infrastructure, environment and confidence and encouraging the development of a diversified range of factories and offices.
The LDDC is also helping the main providers of education and training to improve their services and it aims to create a stronger, more up-to-date diverse local economy. There has been 14·1 million sq ft of commercial development and a further 21 million sq ft is under construction or committed. The number of firms in the area has doubled from 1,100 in 1981 to 2,300 in 1990, and more than 50 per cent. of those were start-ups and not transfers. Employment has also grown, with 17,000 jobs in new business start-ups and 24,000 in relocation. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should pay tribute to the considerable progress made by LDDC rather than knock it.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the Government's training record in London. We discussed the macro figures. London's youth training budget for 1990–91 is £47·83 million, which is slightly higher than the actual spend in 1990. The employment training budget is £48·44 million. There are more than 15,000 trainees on youth training and more than 11,000 are benefiting from employment training.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the youth training guarantee. The Government are fully committed to that guarantee and it is too early for Opposition Members to say that we are not delivering it. We shall not know about the demand for youth training places until we are clearer about the plans and intentions of summer school leavers. We are monitoring the situation and are in close contact with the TECs, and we shall act to ensure that the guarantee can be met. That cannot be contradicted, because we will not know the figures until later.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister will be aware that the Department carried out a review on or around 26 March after the Secretary of State expressed concern about the delivery of the guarantee. He will also know that on or around 24 May there was yet another survey of supply and demand for youth training places all over the country. This is July, and Government documents now show that it will be September before the picture is clear. Plainly, the youth training guarantee is not being delivered in many TECs and local authority areas. Will the Minister concede that and tell the Secretary of State that TECs need more money and that if they do not get it the youth training guarantee will not be worth the paper on which it is written?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on purloined documents, and I liked the language of the


police courts that he used—"on or around." It sounded like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and his talk of the Belgrano.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central knows from his purloined documents that the Government are concerned, as they must be, about their ability to deliver a guarantee that they have given. He has recorded the fact that we have been monitoring the position. We continue to do so. Nothing that he said has controverted the point that I made—that we cannot know the position until we know the state of the demand that there will be for YT places. I assure him that it is our intention to deliver on the YT guarantee. I have said that at least a dozen times in the House. The hon. Gentleman should stop pressing us, because he is riot implying that we do not intend to honour the words that we have uttered in the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for instigating this debate. Unlike some, I do not believe in selling London short. We in this House have the honour of working in one of the world's greatest capital cities with an outstanding economic and employment history. And in my opinion London's prospects for the future are just as exciting as its past has been.
Firms in London employ 3·5 million people, twice as many as in the whole of the east midlands. It contributes 15 per cent. of Britain's gross domestic product, and though we hardly think of it as a manufacturing centre, there are 21,500 manufacturing premises in the capital. It is true that, like other areas of the United Kingdom, London is suffering job losses and rising unemployment. But when Opposition Members talk as though London is derelict, polluted, impoverished, and grinding to a halt, I wonder whether they ever spend any time out and about the capital.
London has some of the finest museums in the world. As I went to see it only a couple of days ago, I mention in particular the new Sainsbury wing of the National gallery, so generously endowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We have great orchestras, theatres, parks, leisure attractions and sporting venues that match the best in the world.
London also represents one of the most important, arguably the most important, financial, commercial and telecommunications centres in the world.
As the economic policies of the Government bring about a return to prosperity, London is well placed to be a major beneficiary. Our inner city policies are encouraging economic regeneration in partnership with the private sector, with the docklands as a shining example. London's transport system is currently being strengthened, at a cost of billions of pounds, through projects such as the extension of the docklands light railway to the City, and the Dartford crossing. All these urban and infrastructure improvements will provide huge opportunities and benefits for London's businesses and workers.
I recommend to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Fife, Central that they reflect on these developments in a more balanced way, to give a more balanced presentation of the opportunities as well as the problems that face London.

EC Agricultural Policies

Mr. William Hague: I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of the European Community agricultural policy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply to the debate. This subject is of vital concern to my constituents and many thousands of others throughout the country who work in agriculture or depend on it in some way. It should be of concern to all those who believe that food should be produced efficiently, that trade between the nations of the Community should be fair, and that our rural environment should be well looked after and preserved.
I raise the subject now because the launch of a new set of agricultural policy proposals by the European Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, has brought discussion about future agricultural policy to a critical point, and because these discussions inevitably have implications for the success of the GATT round to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues among the G7 leaders have committed themselves.
The debate in the Community is only the latest in a long fight to reform the inefficient and wasteful common agricultural policy that has already gone on for years. In the 1980s, we took a leading role in arguing for reform, often in the face of unrelieved complacency and a near-paralysis of decision-making in the highest councils of the Community. Now, at least, the need for change is being more widely recognised, as continuing budget pressures and the demands of the GATT negotiations finally force some sense into the collective mind of the Community's agricultural policy makers.
How the Community responds to those pressures is important. The agricultural policy that emerges from the next few months will constitute a significant statement about—and an indication of—the sort of entity that the Community will be. Will it be open, fair and competitive, or protectionist, closed and discriminatory? The danger now is that the Community will adopt an agricultural policy that favours the inefficient, high-cost producer at the expense of the efficient, low-cost producer and that, in doing so, it will damage the interests of Europe's agricultural industry and its consumers and the cause of more open and effective competition around the world.
In particular, there is a danger that the Commission's proposals will discriminate against, and disadvantage, the average British farmer simply because he tends to be more efficient and to develop his business on a more viable scale and has adapted to changing circumstances more effectively than his average continental counterpart.

Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not one of the difficulties the definition of family farms? Many of our farms have a number of people living and working on them—a father, a couple of sons and often a daughter. They are quite small units, but because they are all under one umbrella they are subject to all the disadvantages that MacSharry is trying to wish on them now—or would have, if we did not have a very effective Minister who will fight for us.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On many British farms several generations, or different branches of a family, work together. Such families have


been penalised in the past by Community arrangements and they will be penalised still further by some of the proposals that are on the table now.
The danger to which I have referred is nothing new. Britain joined the European Community too late and the agricultural policy that was already in place when we joined was tilted towards the small farmer and, in general, the continental farmer. The common agricultural policy pursued by the Community before we joined—and ever since—has led to more expensive food, the production and costly storage of huge unwanted surpluses and the maintenance of many tiny, uneconomic, part-time farms in continental Europe, which add to the surpluses at the expense of the taxpayer and to the detriment of larger, more efficient and more professional farming businesses around the Community.
One would have thought that the GATT round presented an opportunity for the Community to break with the inefficiencies of the past. As the whole world looked to freer competition and fairer trade, surely the Community would move in step with the times. In almost every other industry, the Commission is busily at work ensuring fair competition, reducing state aids and insisting that industries learn to compete on equal terms. Not so in agriculture.
Mr. MacSharry's latest proposals go deliberately and unerringly in the opposite direction from the policies set by the Commission for other industries and the policies that the whole world seeks for agriculture. His proposals would indeed cut the support prices offered to European farmers for most of their products; but they would go on to compensate fully all farms below a certain size for the reductions envisaged—and possibly do more than fully compensate them. They would also discriminate against the largest and most efficient farmers and probably lead to a further growth in the budget required to carry the common agricultural policy, without any significant benefits for the consumer of for the farmer who runs a sound business.
The proposals must be fiercely opposed and I am delighted to learn that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry have opposed them vociferously. I hope that they will continue to do so. Let us look at a few examples of what the proposals could mean.
The Commission proposes to reduce the intervention price for cereals by about 35 per cent. Compensation per hectare would be paid to farmers to help them to withstand the cut, but to qualify for payments a farmer would have to enter a set-aside scheme. Here is the rub: a farmer producing less than 92 tonnes per year would be exempt from the set-aside obligation. On United Kingdom farms, the compensation payments for set-aside would effectively be limited to the first 6 hectares, with the rest unpaid.
The net result would be severe discrimination against the larger farms. The National Farmers Union has calculated that a small arable farm of 15·6 hectares would suffer a 2 per cent. loss of income as a result of the proposals, while a 100 hectare farm would suffer a 28 per cent. loss. As farm size increases, the fall in income becomes more severe. The National Farmers Union estimates that United Kingdom cereals production would fall by about 2·5 million tonnes—a 10 per cent. cut out of

a normal output of about 24 million tonnes. The total cost of this policy for the whole of the European Community would be additional payments of thousands of millions of pounds, mainly going to small farms on the continent, which are not economically viable units anyway, and keeping them for ever in competition with the less subsidised farms in this country that can produce cereal products more cheaply for the consumer.
The cereals policy is bad enough, but it is only the beginning. In the milk sector there would be a 10 per cent. cut in intervention prices and a 4 per cent. quota cut, but compensation would be paid—this is the problem—on the first 40 cows. Once again the result would be to disadvantage severely the large farmer and, therefore, generally the British farmer. European Community expenditure on the milk sector could rise by up to £500 million a year, if these proposals are implemented. The extra money once again would go to the tiniest farms.
The NFU has again estimated the implications for farms of different size. Its estimates show that a small farm with 30 cows would be 6 per cent. better off, that an average dairy herd of 70 cows would leave its owner 12 per cent. worse off and that a herd of 140 cows would mean a 25 per cent. reduction in income. That is even after allowing for the reduced cereal prices resulting from the measures already discussed. Once again the successful farmer who has expanded his business would suffer. The one who had sat on his hands and collected his subsidies each year would, yet again, be better off. That cannot be the right policy to take European agriculture into the 21st century.
The greatest horrors are still to come. These are the implications for the livestock sector to which I, representing the hill farmers of the Yorkshire dales, take particular exception. For one thing, the reductions in cereals prices are likely to encourage increased production of poultry and pigmeat. That would mean a reduction in the price for these products, which in turn would exert a downward pressure on the price of beef and sheepmeat. Paradoxically, the result could be increasing surpluses of beef and rising intervention stocks, producing yet more expense for the taxpayer.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate on behalf of the farmers of this country. It is high time that the points he is making were brought out so that they are understood. There is a myth that the common agricultural policy is costing the average family £17 a week. Do my hon. Friend and Mr. MacSharry honestly believe that, by reducing output and prices, prices to the consumer will be reduced?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. Any analysis of the proposals now before the Council of Ministers does not lead to the immediate conclusion that prices to the consumer would fall. However, expense to the consumer and taxpayer has every chance of increasing.
I was examining the possible consequences for the livestock sector and how beef surpluses might increase still further. On top of all that, a 15 per cent. intervention price cut is proposed for beef and veal. We can reasonably expect sheepmeat prices to fall by about the same proportion. In addition, the Commission's proposals would limit the number of sheep eligible for the ewe premium on each holding to 350, instead of 500, and to


750 in the less-favoured areas, instead of 1,000. The result for livestock farmers in the less-favoured areas would be a fall in income of 26 per cent. on average and a staggering 43 per cent. fall in the lowlands. Such reductions would mean the abandonment of large parts of the British countryside and the dereliction of much of our finest rural landscape. Arid for what? The policy would need £500 million in additional ewe premium and £600 million in additional suckler cow premium. What sort of saving would be made in the face of such increases in costs?
We can see, therefore, that British agriculture would suffer considerably from these proposals, without the British taxpayer gaining much in return. The people who are best at producing our cereals, milk and livestock would all be hard hit, yet farmers of some other products in the Community would not need to lose a moment's sleep over what is proposed. If a farmer produces olive oil, he can rest easy. A fruit farmer need not worry. These are areas where the Commission believes that it would not be right to reopen the debate, given that so-called comprehensive changes have been agreed recently. In reality, the producers of southern Europe are left alone while northern European producers are expected to bear the burden of the Commission's policy in price cuts and tax.
To be fair to the Commission, its policy incorporates reasonable proposals that are by no means as lunatic as those that I have listed. It has introduced a number of schemes to aid environment, including an extensification scheme, an environmentally friendly management scheme and a scheme for the environmental upkeep of abandoned land. It also proposes an afforestation scheme and an early retirement scheme, which in principle are not bad ideas. Much of the help that it proposes needs to be less indiscriminate and more carefully targeted, but let us at least give it credit for those measures.
Nevertheless, Britain should fight the overall proposal all the way. Mr. Rodney Swarbrick, president of the Country Landowners Association, put it well in his letter to The Times last week. He said of the proposal:
It attempts to throw the whole process of economic development into reverse. Mr. MacSharry has openly stated that his objective is to retain the maximum number of farmers on the land, the great majority of whom in his own words could never be described as competitive or viable. He, therefore, proposes that billions of extra ECUs of taxpayers' money should be spent to preserve an antiquated EC agricultural structure.
Worse, the heavily subsidised production from these farmers will compete with the unsubsidised production of those bearing the brunt of the discrimination in his proposals and facing keener world markets after a GATT settlement. This can only lessen the viability and competitiveness of EC agriculture in precisely those areas where these qualities are most needed.
There can be no economic rationale for this. It removes the much needed incentive for structural reform of European agriculture and the CAP budget implications would be colossal.
That is a good summary of the position. I hope that Ministers will do their utmost to persuade their counterparts on the continent that this cannot be the right way to proceed. We need price cuts in the GATT deal—but cuts which mean that efficiency pays and which take place at a pace that the efficient farmer can withstand.
We must ensure that new European policies will not lead to huge expense and mountains of surpluses. They must therefore exclude the blanket subsidies to every part-time farmer in Europe, as envisaged by Mr.

MacSharry. They should make environmental considerations a more integral part of the policy, with set-aside linked to provision for environmental protection and more selective direct payments for delivering specified and valuable care for the countryside or for those who maintain the finest rural environment in the face of permanent handicaps imposed by climate or geography such as in the less-favoured areas of the United Kingdom.

Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The stone walls.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend refers to the stone walls of northern England. They would soon be gone without the farmers who work in those areas.
Surely the Commission can be brought to see that the policies that it proposes are a futile retreat before the advance of economic reality and a terrible advertisement for the Community and the principles on which it operates. To have a sound future, the Community must be fair to all its citizens, must bring the best out of its industries and must encourage its people, who can compete successfully with anyone else in the world. With its ludicrous agricultural proposals, it is being true to none of those objectives and I implore my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to do all that they can to ensure that the proposals end up in the waste bin, where they properly belong.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. The MacSharry proposals are important to people who are involved in agriculture and farming. More farmers are leaving the industry than at any time since the war, which is of grave concern to many parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks referred to the need to reach agreement on reform of the CAP and the subsidy to agriculture because of the importance of reaching a conclusion on the GATT round. We all acknowledge the importance of that for Britain's trade in manufactured goods and other commodities. The two points are linked and the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that. We also recognise the importance of that.
Another reason why it is important that we should discuss these issues and why any reform of the CAP is of extreme importance is that we face changes within the European Community that we may not have envisaged two or three years ago. Many eastern European countries may come into the EC before the turn of the century. We must have policies dealing with agriculture that will recognise the completely changed situation when other countries come in. We have already absorbed East Germany; it was incorporated into West Germany and became a united Germany, which we welcomed so much only a year ago.
When we recognise that countries such as Romania and all the other eastern European countries may enter the Community before the turn of the century and that before the war cereal production in Romania was second only to that of the Ukraine in European output, we recognise the implications for change. We have the opportunity of having policies that meet the needs now, allow us to reach agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and take account of the rapidly changing situations which


many of us welcome. I believe that it is in the interests of Europe and the world that other countries are admitted to the EC as soon as they meet the criteria.
There is widespread opposition—which we share—to the MacSharry proposals and there is concern about them not only in this country, but in the other countries of Europe. Many farmers are very canny people. Some whom I have met suspect that, because there is such widespread opposition, by the quirks of the way in which the Community works, the proposals may go through. We must reassure farmers that we will ensure that we get a better and more acceptable arrangement not only for those who are involved in agriculture, but for the consumers and the country generally.
When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answered questions last week, he made his position clear. In reply to questions, he said:
I will then place on record again our opposition to those parts of the MacSharry plan that discriminate against British agriculture, northern agriculture, specialist agriculture, efficient agriculture, the interests of the consumer, European agricultural ability to compete with the rest of the world, and use reform not to reform agriculture itself, but to put forward Mr. MacSharry's personal views."—[Official Report, 18 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 488.]
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks emphasised that point.
The Opposition and the farmers want to hear exactly what the Government believe should be done. [Interruption.] When we sit on the Government Benches, we shall be glad to say exactly what our position is. In all seriousness, we want to hear what the Minister proposes.
I draw attention to one item—the subsidy for tobacco. Some £1 billion is given as a subsidy for the benefit of two member states of the EC that produce a tobacco of unusable quality. That seems nonsense. It has been said that we want to spend money on research to develop more usable tobaccos. I am a smoker, so I am not anti-smoking, although I know that I should give up. It seems nonsense when other sections of the Community are leading campaigns to stop advertising and to discourage smoking altogether. I believe that most people would argue that to subsidise tobacco from Community funds is nonsense.

Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has raised an excellent point. It was absolutely crazy to spend money on producing tobacco which nobody smoked and which went straight into store.

Mr. Pike: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for underlining a point on which there is universal agreement.
The present agricultural policy costs the average family of four in this country £16 a week. We pay £23 billion for storage, disposal of surplus and export refunds. That money does not go to the farmer. People would be extremely surprised to learn that 60 per cent. plus of the budget does not go to the farmer. It goes to the intermediary. We do not have a cheap food policy either, which is another nonsense.
The price of sheep in cash terms is less now than it was a few years ago. If one allows for inflation, however, the price in real terms is even worse. Many sheep farmers work difficult land and they are finding it hard to manage. In the supermarket the price of lamb is no cheaper than it was all those years ago. The farmer is therefore entitled to ask where the difference in price goes.
I know that the Minister visited the Trough of Rowland last week. Last year a number of colleagues and I visited a number of farms as part of an all-party tour. Those farmers gave us the relative figures on what they received in subsidy and what they spent. I found it extremely difficult to understand why those farmers remained in farming. Their take from the income they received and on which their families were expected to live was so abysmally low that there was no encouragement for them to continue to farm. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, younger generations are extremely discouraged from remaining in farming.
The environmental implications of the MacSharry proposals should strike a chord with everyone. We should consider the proposals sympathetically. They are in line with the Labour party proposal on green premia. Such environmental proposals should be considered carefully in future. We should discourage the use of pesticides and fertilisers beyond a certain necessary level, particularly as the environmental implications of their use is already well known from experience.
We must also consider what is happening with set-aside. Some claim—I do not know whether the allegation is true—that farmers set aside the least productive parts of their land while increasing production on the other parts. That achieves exactly the opposite of what was intended. That must be nonsense.
My generation learnt in school that farmers laid certain sections of the land to rest and practised crop rotation. Perhaps in the years ahead we should revert to some of the old systems with a lower intensity and fewer fertilisers and pesticides.
Those issues are extremely important and, although we recognise the complexity of reaching agreement with our European partners, we must do so. Obviously, many other aspects of European harmonisation are also taking place. Our farming industry differs greatly from those of our European competitors because our farms are much larger. In many countries, farms are extremely small and farmers' circumstances are completely different from those in this country.
It is nonsense to have milk quotas but insufficient milk to produce all the dairy produce that we need, so that we must import so many higher value products. Anyone who goes around the supermarkets will see an increasing number of imports of such products. We must consider whether reforming the milk marketing board is the right way to proceed. We must also consider milk production and the effect of quotas, because there are some anomalies.
How do the Government see the way ahead in the negotiations? We recognise that they are extremely difficult, but we want a deal that will encourage and enable our farmers to remain in business and live a reasonable lifestyle without experiencing poverty. Many farmers in less-favoured areas are finding it extremely difficult to survive. We also want a fair deal for consumers so that they do not have to subsidise inefficient agriculture in Europe to an unfair and unacceptable extent. Finally, we want to reach an agreement that will enable the GATT round to be concluded in the best interests of this nation.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for introducing this important debate in such an authoritative way, even if he brings us no cheer.
We must ask ourselves what we want agriculture for, because there is considerable confusion about that question in Europe. The purpose of agriculture used to be to produce good food as cheaply as possible so that we could feed our populations, but those days seem to have passed. However, I would not put it past us to create a policy that would cause some sort of food crisis in about 20 or 30 years' time. Many countries in the European Community see agriculture as a sophisticated form of relief for people whom it would be difficult or expensive to introduce to a more urban lifestyle.
We must look carefully at the age structure. I was surprised when I was given some figures about the age structure of French farming that showed that it was younger than I had expected. But the age structure of the farmers in many European Community countries is becoming older and older. It would be short sighted and absurd to create a policy that effectively turned out to support a generation that is coming out of farming.
If we want our farms to be a system of sophisticated countryside gardening—as I suspect many people in this country see it becoming—we shall have to debate much wider issues. One factor that makes it hard for our farmers is that they are regulated up to their necks on what they may do with their land. They are prevented from selling it for any purpose, yet we are exposing them to fiercer and fiercer competition across Europe.
I come from a constituency where most of the population would, I think, be hostile to considerable development. However, at present, we face considerable development that is being haphazardly added on to the urban sprawl. It is hard on farmers and makes it difficult to create an effective set-aside policy or take land out of production. We must reconsider those issues.
I believe that this country's farmers must do more direct marketing. The distribution chain in this country is far too long and far too expensive. That is true across Europe, but especially in this country. The Kingdom Cox campaign, which put the Cox's orange pippin back into the shops of Europe, is a fine example of what can be done if the farmers get their act together and start selling British produce in a way that causes other people to take it seriously.
We need to achieve wider alliances in Europe—not just in the European Community but within those countries that would like to join it. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is fighting hard on behalf of British agriculture, needs to have more weight behind him. There are a great many people in Europe who, if the MacSharry proposals go through, will wake up and discover that they are a rotten deal for them. At present there is a tendency for others to say that the British are once again trying to protect their agriculture, which draws a veil over people. They stop thinking clearly and merely say, "It is the bloody Brits trying to protect their industry—we'll stop listening."
One place where my right hon. Friend the Minister might look for allies and an energetic debate is the Council of Europe, which takes in a wide range of European

countries where many of the parliamentarians in the general assembly have no idea what the proposals are about.

Sir Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much to help farming since he came to office.
There is no doubt that farmers' incomes at present are as low as I remember them for many years. It is incongruous that, when the cost of the common agricultural policy increases, farmers' incomes seem to go down. I know that the Government are doing all that they can to fight the MacSharry proposals, which will make matters infinitely worse than they are at present.
Mr. MacSharry seems to be under the impression that all large farms make profits when, in fact, many of the largest farms, particularly in Scotland, are in hill sheep districts, where incomes are low and largely supported by the sheep premium, the suckler cow premium and the hill livestock compensatory allowance.
It is important that we look ahead, perhaps in terms of marketing, or in other ways, so that when we lose the intervention price for sheep next January, we know what will happen. At times this summer, lamb has been down to 100p per pound and it may be stabilising now at 120p. Even that means a huge intervention price, and what will happen when that support disappears?
I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) in respect of milk products. Large manufacturing processors in my constituency are short of milk and it seems ridiculous that Europe should be saying that we must cut production by 2 per cent. or more when there is a shortage in this country of milk for processing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken that point on board and that I need say no more about exporting milk products to the Mediterranean, middle east and Russia and the unnecessary difficulties that seem to be put in the way of our producers.
Farming is certainly going through a difficult time. The set-aside scheme is of minimal importance to the industry's overall problems, and we must devise with Mr. MacSharry proposals that are more acceptable to the farming industry. Farming has a right to see a fair return on its capital and it is not achieving that at present. No one is using the word "prosperous"—we only want a reasonable level of profitability for an industry that can help the rural countryside to maintain its present high environmental standards. If we do not all work together to that end, the nation will be the loser.

Mr. Ray Powell: Farming in Wales is dear to my heart. My parents were born in Malvern in Worcestershire and, as a result of the depression that hit the country at one time under the then Conservative Government, my father had to move to the Rhondda valley to work in the mines. He always wanted to return to farming and most of my colleagues and friends in my constituency are farmers.
I had hoped to contribute to the next debate, on training and enterprise councils, because they are also a subject close to my heart and to my constituency activities.
We were once advised by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, to invest in a farm in the Garw valley so that we could train people to become agriculturists and horticulturists. We embarked on a programme by employing a farm manager from Leigh Sinton in Malvern, who came to the Garw valley. The £100,000 farm that we established employed 45 agriculturists—young people interested in the farming industry.
Within two years, the same Minister told us that it would be far better to invest Community funding in computers, because the Government no longer required as many agriculturists or horticulturists. As a result, the farm programme was abandoned. Having listened to Ministers over the past few months, I am beginning to wonder whether they are true to their beliefs, because if they do not want to train people, it does not seem likely that they are interested in encouraging the farming industry.
Many of my Welsh hon. Friends—and one in particular, who is not a member of my party but is a farmer—constantly impress on me that farmers are losing a tremendous amount of money and have done so for years as a consequence of Government policy.
I have met many farmers, and I have noticed that they seem always to wear old and tattered tweed coats with leather patches on the elbows. They wear shirts that I have seen on them over the past five or six years. They usually have a good, strong pair of boots that have lasted them longer than the pairs of shoes that I wear to wander about the house. They look as though they have just picked up the mean social security benefit to which they would be entitled from the Government.
Lo and behold, as happens to us all, Father Time comes along and these men come to the end of their days as farmers. The son inherits the Rover, or sometimes the Rolls which is in the cowshed. There is often a great dispute within the family about the wealth that is left by the farmer. We do not know the wealth of a farmer until his will is published.

Dame EIaine Kellett-Bowman: The farmer's wealth is the value of the land that he leaves. He cannot sell off bits of land to live by.

Mr. Powell: I thought that the hon. Lady was writing a speech. I was in full flow, but I find that the hon. Lady's interjection—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I know that the hon. Member will not allow an interruption to divert him from what he intended to say about EEC farming.

Mr. Powell: That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) had not interjected in my speech, I would now be concluding my brief speech.
I remember a recent sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee when my right hon. and hon. Friends were all on the list of speakers in a debate on Welsh farming. A group of farmers travelled here from Wales—no doubt they had left the cows to be milked in the evening—to attend a sitting of the Committee. They listened to the debate and a strange thing happened during it. They cheered my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) as he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.
I was pleased when I saw him enter the Chamber a short while ago to take his place on the Opposition Front Bench. Cheering is unusual in the Public Gallery of a Committee Room. Indeed, it would be unusual if the Public Gallery of the Chamber were crowded with farmers and they started to cheer during a speech. My hon. Friend made a speech on behalf of farmers and the farmers on the Strangers' Seats cheered him because of the promises that my hon. Friend made to sustain them until the coming to power of a Labour Government, perhaps in November this year, March or April 1992, or whenever the general election takes place, after the Prime Minister has the guts to call it.
The farmers cheered in the hope that what was being said by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Opposition as shadow Secretary of State for Wales meant that policies would be introduced to assist farmers in Wales. Such policies are long overdue. After all, farmers and others have been waiting for them for the past eleven and a half years. We have been waiting for the Government to make a positive contribution to farming and to save a great many farms.
I have referred to the farm that a trading organisation took over. There was one section for trainee farmers and another for trainee horticulturists. The farm is now up for sale. Its value two years ago was £220,000. The highest offer that CATO—Community Activities and Training in Ogwr—received for the farm was £100,000—substantially less than it paid for it.
I mention that case because that is happening throughout Wales. Hill farms, sheep farms and dairy farms are for sale, but the farmers cannot get a price that reflects the worth of their properties. The farm in the Garw valley has only 88 acres, but we cannot get an offer for it to cover the outstanding mortgage. I appreciate the difficulties of farmers at the present time. The promises from Ministers about what they will do for farmers both in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom do not appear to assist them in any shape or form.
Of the list of debates that should be held on the Consolidated Fund, some 20 are still to be called. Hon. Members are in the Chamber with prepared speeches hoping to speak on matters just as important—perhaps even more important—than agriculture. Only last week the House debated the sittings of the House, when it was suggested that there should be shorter hours. There should be longer hours so that all debates could be held. The Consolidated Fund is the only occasion when hon. Members can deploy their arguments on their chosen subjects. Perhaps you could help us, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the past 12 months I have campaigned about the way in which training and enterprise councils conduct themselves. I am sure that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman in now testing the patience of the House. The debate is about European agriculture policy and the hon. Gentleman must refer to that or allow other hon. Members to speak and the Minister to reply.

Mr. Powell: I realise that hon. Members are eager to participate in the debate and that the Minister is eager to reply to it. I have waited all night for my subject matter to be called, but it is now too late for that. However, this debate is important, and I wanted to contribute to it and to refer especially to my constituency.
Hill farming in Wales and in Ogmore faces great problems. North Wales has had, and still has, a problem because of contaminated lamb. Some people in parts of north Wales are afraid to buy Welsh lamb. When, on a previous occasion, I said that a butcher in north Wales was using a geiger counter to prove to his customers that his lambs were free from contamination, the Minister suggested that I was scaremongering. But that has happened in north Wales, and there is still doubt about the lamb.
Farmers are suffering because of the Government's attitude and the lack of compensation for the shortfall in the amounts for which lambs would be sold at market.
I hope that there will be sufficient time left in the debate for me to introduce my subject.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond" Yorks (Mr. Hague) for raising this issue and for providing me with an opportunity to set out the Government's proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy.
It was interesting that, when I tempted the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) by saying, "I shall tell you my proposals if you tell us the Labour party's" he said that the Labour party would tell us when it was in power. I suspect that we will wait a long time before we hear the Labour party's proposals for reform of the CAP. In the next few months, we shall tell all farmers that the Labour party has nothing to offer on CAP reform.
It is also interesting that, when I tempted the Labour party to tell us its policy, it rushed in the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to try to ensure that I would not have enough time to answer the debate properly. [Interruption.] To hear Opposition Front-Bench Members saying to the hon. Gentleman's little filibuster, "Nice one" just proves that they do not want to hear the facts. Although the hon. Member for Burnley might not have told us his policies, I shall tell the House the principles in which the Government believe as we argue for CAP reform. It must be sensible reform, not the MacSharry proposals.
Our objectives for reform can be met only if MacSharry's proposals are modified to include a progressive reduction in the level of prices and other support, at a pace that will enable efficient farmers to

adjust. We want measures that bear equally on all producers, regardless of size of enterprise or location. Budget costs should be kept within the guideline. Direct aids should not be paid to all farmers but should be more selectively targeted at particular objectives: for those who deliver specified care for the countryside, meeting a need that market forces alone will not meet; and for those who face permanent handicaps of climate and geography.
If help is judged essential to assist any producers to get through the period of change, payments should be limited in time and degressive in amount, constituting real adjustment aid. There is no harm in retirement payments for outgoers. Such payments could play a useful role, at least in some member states. Set-aside should be on a voluntary basis and used to help the environment. To ensure that it is applied effectively in all member states, the idea of national targets should be seriously considered.
Environmental considerations should become an integral part of the CAP. The Commission's idea for agri-environmental programmes should be extended, but the opportunity should also be taken to incorporate environmental conditions in other forms of agricultural support wherever practicable.
I believe that our message is clear. We all agree that reform of the CAP is essential for farmers, consumers and taxpayers alike. Reform along the lines that MacSharry proposes would not encourage efficient farming, but would let budget costs go up even further and would discriminate against efficiency, particularly of producers in all parts of the United Kingdom—in Yorkshire, Cumbria, Dumfries in Scotland and even in Wales.
MacSharry's proposals would cost the taxpayer much more. They would not provide cheaper food prices and would devastate our countryside. MacSharry is rightly treading the path of reform, but he has lost his way and we believe that we should get him back on course.
Mr. MacSharry's proposals would devastate our rural economy. Thousands of small tenanted farms, not just big estates, would be devastated and the consequences for our rural economy would be appalling. As a Government we must not allow that to happen. Thousands of sheep farmers would be driven off the land and the public must understand that we would have no idyllic dales or lovely fells without active sheep farmers, no more dry stone walls repaired or hay barns saved from dereliction and no more trees planted or hedgerows relaid.

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Insolvency Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

9 am

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that in your customary way you will be able to advise me, since Back Benchers often need to raise matters of great importance to them, on how to deal with a problem created by the shortness of time between now and when the House rises for the summer recess. During the past nine months in the House I have introduced a ten-minute Bill, I have presented a Bill to the House and I have asked questions on the training and enterprise councils and, in particular, Mid-Glamorgan TEC, asking for a public inquiry. I was hoping to be able to ask again today, and I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could advise me on how to put that request again to the House in the short time available between now and when the House rises for the summer recess.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair does not usually offer advice on such procedural matters on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to find a method himself. He does not have to look far down our Order Paper to see that before the House rises there is a debate on economic policies when he might try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome this opportunity to debate the Insolvency Service, the first since the service became an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.
The service was established more than 100 years ago to protect the public. At that time, when the Bankruptcy Act 1883 was being debated in the House of Commons, Joseph Chamberlain said that it should
improve the general tone of commercial morality … protect the salvage and diminish the risk of wreck".
The service has a strong and honourable tradition of commitment to those purposes. It provides an essential means of coping with financial failure and, through its investigatory functions, contributes to confidence in the market.
The service is now a vital part of our contemporary economy. It has a clear identity within the Department of Trade and Industry. It enjoys greater freedom to manage its affairs and to respond flexibly to the changing needs of the society it serves.
This year, the Insolvency Service has a budget of some £45 million, of which about 65 per cent. is accounted for in staff costs. Most of our debate today concerns the DTI, but nevertheless I appreciate that the Treasury is involved as it has a number of specific responsibilities as set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 for certain issues of finance, accounting and investment and for certain fees. The Treasury also has some other order-making powers and the Insolvency Service executive agency is subject to Treasury staff inspection.
The Insolvency Service initiates legal action based on reports submitted by official receivers where the reports allege that criminal offences have been committed or where a director's conduct is such that he is unfit to be a director of a company and an application should be made for him

to be disqualified. In both cases, official receivers are targeted to submit reports within 10 months of the winding-up orders in at least 80 per cent. of cases identified for investigation.
I shall examine shortly the service's interpretation of when to prosecute or not. It may, though, be appropriate to ask what expertise is held within the service. Currently 632 officials in the Insolvency Service studied for accountancy or allied qualifications. Of these, 84 are fully qualified, 14 will shortly be sitting their final examinations and others are still studying. Additionally, a number of officers are members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association. While some entrants to the service have law degrees, what surprises me is that there is not a single fully qualified lawyer in the service. That is a source of concern. Such legal expertise as is required is provided at arm's length by the solicitors division of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I come now to the approach adopted by the Insolvency Service. The official receivers submit reports to the DTI when investigations have shown that criminal offences appear to have been committed. After vetting by the service they are forwarded to the investigations division of the Department with a view to prosecution. Criminal proceedings are normally instituted by the Secretary of State, although a small number of cases are referred to the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown prosecution service. In considering whether criminal proceedings should be instituted, the principles and criteria laid down in the code for Crown prosecutors are applied, and the prosecutor considers whether he is satisfied that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person; and, if he is so satisfied, whether the public interest requires a prosecution. The objective is to institute criminal proceedings within four weeks of that decision being taken when the case is to be taken summarily. When the case is to be taken on indictment, the period is eight weeks. When these criteria are not met, criminal proceedings will not be instituted.
Last year, official receivers submitted 569 reports, compared with 627 in 1989, alleging that criminal offences had been committed. During the year convictions were obtained in just 290 cases, compared with 352 in 1989, resulting in 309 persons being convicted—388 in 1989—of 769 different offences. The latter figure for 1989 was 671.
The Insolvency Service had, at 30 June 1991, obtained 1,009 disqualification orders against individual directors of failed companies. Additionally, 94 warning letters were issued to individuals last year—107 in 1989—where there was evidence of an offence having been committed but where it was not considered that proceeding with a prosecution would be in the public interest. During 1990, official receivers also assisted the police or other investigatory authorities in 412 criminal investigations. During the year, 166 persons were convicted in such cases.
William Shakespeare frequently made allusions to insolvency. In "Venus and Adonis" he refers to the "blessed bankrupt"; three years later in "Romeo and Juliet" his adjective had changed to the "poor bankrupt"; while the advice given in "Timon of Athens" was:

"Bankrupt, hold fast,
Rather than render back, out with your knives
And cut your trusters' throats."

Against this background, I turn to the case of Mrs. A. My constituent met Mr. A about four years ago. They


married in 1988 and divorced the following year. She was not aware that Mr. A had been declared a bankrupt in 1982 and discharged from his bankruptcy in December 1989.
In June 1989 Mrs. A was persuaded to take out a personal loan with Mercantile Credit which was countersigned by Mr. A. She was forced by her husband also to take funds from her account in a building society.
On 11 May 1990, Mrs. A visited the official receiver in Hull, who advised a week later that there was insufficient evidence. Yet she had shown five specific examples of evidence: Mr. A advertising his business, using cars purchased by Mrs. A as taxis; taking credit over £250 while still an undischarged bankrupt; registering his business for VAT; and securing a mortgage by deception. Mrs. A was even advised that she could not have her own property returned.
The official receiver said that the evidence produced,
was not sufficiently conclusive of the offences alleged and that the case, taken as a whole on this evidence, was unlikely to be successful".
Subsequently, Mrs. A forwarded further documents to the official receiver which provided "clearer and better evidence" in the words of the service's senior official receiver. The Hull office agreed to contact the finance companies involved.
In the year ended 31 March 1991, official receivers covering the Yorkshire area submitted 209 reports, alleging either the commission of possible criminal offences or recommending that applications be made for the disqualification of directors whose conduct appeared to make them unfit to be concerned in the management of limited companies. At the end of June, there were 191 cases under investigation. The service's offices in Yorkshire have 29 officials who have studied for accountancy or allied qualifications. Rather worryingly, only three are fully qualified and no one has a law degree or any legal expertise as is required by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mrs. A was awarded maintenance on 18 June last year, but no funds were forthcoming. She returned to court on 3 August and the maintenance was actually reduced. Again, no funds were secured. At that stage she estimates that Mr. A owed £62,000 in tax and she warned the authorities that her ex-husband was investing in a property on the Algarve.
Despite receiving an assurance on 5 June that a full investigation would be initiated by the official receiver, I heard nothing Further and therefore wrote to the service on 11 September for a progress report. That was tardiness itself. A guarded response dated 4 October, four months after the last letter, referred to a difficulty in securing documentation from hire purchase companies. At the same time inquiries were made of the Inland Revenue as to whether it was trying to recover funds from Mr. A. For reasons of confidentiality, no information was available, although the Inland Revenue's special branch appreciated being informed. No further information came from the Insolvency Service until 28 March this year, hardly a speedy reaction. This stated that the official receiver's report had been passed to the investigation division solicitors.
I am reminded of the words of Lord Meston, speaking in the other place on 15 January 1985. He said:
A cynic has observed that if you go 'bust' for £700 you are probably a fool; if you go 'bust' for £7,000 you are probably

in the dock, and if you go 'bust' for £7 million you are probably rescued by the Bank of England.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1985; Vol. 458, c. 914.]
Sad to say, in an undated letter from the Insolvency Service which was received on 30 May, I was advised that,
having regard to the criteria in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it was not in the public interest that further action should be taken.
Clearly, that was an unhelpful reply and one acknowledged as such in the letter. No explanation was given for this amazing decision.
On 30 May I asked for an explanation and on 14 June the official receiver drew my constituent's attention to paragraph 8(i) of the code, which states:
When the circumstances of an offence are not particularly serious, and a Court would be likely to impose a purely nominal penalty … Crown Prosecutors should carefully consider whether the public interest would be better served by a prosecution or some other form of disposal such as, where appropriate, a caution. This applies particularly where the offence is triable on indictment when Crown Prosecutors should also weigh the likely penalty with the length and cost of the proceedings".
Surely the offences were serious if they involved obtaining credit and carrying on a business without discussing that Mr. A was an undischarged bankrupt. Surely the courts would have awarded an appropriate penalty, and not a "purely nominal" one. Surely bankrupts should be warned that such action will not be tolerated in a civilised society. Fourthly, surely proceedings would be repaid by obtaining the funds illegally acquired.
Meanwhile, Mrs. A had information that her ex-husband was living in Spain, owed £44,000 in tax, and had not had his passport removed. She has since discovered that Mr. A has admitted to earning in excess of £51,000 last year. If someone decides to go abroad leaving debts of tax due, apparently the Inland Revenue has no power either to prevent him from leaving or to have him brought back from his destination. If there are assets in the United Kingdom depending on the size of the debt and the individual circumstances of the case, it can and does take bankruptcy action through the United Kingdom courts involving the service of a writ or statutory demand outside the jurisdiction. This allows the defaulter's United Kingdom assets to be put towards settlement of the debts.
So, in this long saga, Mrs. A still does not have title to the house she owns. She has even had to ask the trustees in Mr. A's bankruptcy for their approval to the building society—which loaned the mortgage—transferring title to her sole name. It would have been helpful if the official receiver had offered to undertake this. I should remind the House that the offices for the receiver in Yorkshire cost £135,200 this year and in Hull £454,000. Earlier this month—on 8 July—after pressure from me, the Hull office confirmed that it had no objection to the property being conveyed into Mrs. A's sole name. Mrs. A has been left with £18,000 worth of unpaid debt.
In my hon. Friend's reply of 8 July, he said it was not possible to calculate an average penalty. The code for Crown prosecutors, which comes under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, was reviewed as recently as this June.
Therefore, what lessons do we learn from this sad case? Could Mrs. A have supplied any additional information to secure justice? She is rightly owed a full explanation. The public must be alarmed at the complacency of the Insolvency Service, its inordinate delay in investigating a straightforward case, and failure to protect the innocent


citizen. Just how large must a fraud be before action is taken? The code needs clarification. Otherwise, the clear message from this case is that fraud still pays.
Gibbon, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", referred in 1781 to
the cruel treatment of the insolvent debtors of the state.
Will our state ensure that it recovers its rightful dues from Mr. A?

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for drawing the attention of the House to the important work of the Insolvency Service and for his kind opening remarks about the central function that it performs. I shall try to answer in some detail the criticisms that he made in this individual case. Listening to his liberal quotations from Shakespeare, the one that was on my mind was:
Neither a borrower, nor a lender be".
As the Minister responsible both for financial services, where things sometimes go wrong for investors, and for the Insolvency Service, where things always go wrong for our clients, that is probably the one that should be engraved on my heart.
My hon. Friend asked whether the absence of lawyers in the Insolvency Service is a worry. As he said, official receivers make reports to the Insolvency Service headquarters. If there appears to be evidence of a prosecutable offence, they are passed to my Department's solicitors. They decide whether to prosecute. Official receivers and the police investigate, and solicitors decide whether to prosecute. As my hon. Friend said, departmental solicitors and the Treasury solicitor are available to advise the Insolvency Service on all legal matters and staff in the service are happy with those arrangements and feel that they have access to the right level and degree of legal advice that they need.
As my hon. Friend said, a number of restrictions are imposed on bankrupts. If they obtain credit of more than £250, they must say that they are bankrupt when they are trying to obtain it. They must always use their own name. In this way, potential creditors can be protected. Most post-bankruptcy offences are brought to the attention of the official receiver by creditors who have suffered a loss as a result. If they come to light in some other way any potential prosecution must weigh that while an offence might have been committed no individual creditor may have suffered.
On 25 July 1983 a receiving order in bankruptcy was made against Mr. A in the York county court on a creditor's petition. Mr. A was adjudged bankrupt on 3 August 1983. The case was administered by the official receiver at Hull. On 23 November 1983, Mr. A was publicly examined at York county court. According to Mr. A's amended statement of affairs, submitted in the bankruptcy proceedings, as at 25 July 1983 his only asset was his interest in the then matrimonial home which was fully charged to secured creditors. He had gross liabilities totalling £121,752, of which £38,470 was due to secured creditors. Only £5·15 was realised in the bankruptcy proceedings and so there was no distribution to creditors.
The official receiver obtained his release as trustee on 8 September 1988. On 3 October 1986, Mr. A's bankruptcy

was reviewed by the court, which is an automatic procedure. He did not attend and he was not granted a discharge from his bankruptcy. Mr. A obtained his discharge from bankruptcy on 29 December 1989, as a consequence of the Insolvency Act's general amnesty for bankruptcies over three years old.
In May 1990, the official receiver at Hull was given information to suggest that, while undischarged, Mr. A had contravened restrictions placed on him. He was said to have obtained credit in excess of £250, without disclosing his status to the creditor. He was also alleged to be trading in a trading name when he had been adjudged bankrupt in his own name. An allegation was also made that he had obtained a mortgage loan by deception.
Carrying on a business while an undischarged bankrupt and registering for value added tax are not in themselves illegal, as long as the conditions for bankrupts have been met. The official receiver was shown evidence that Mr. A had used a trading style in a press advertisement, but he had also quoted his own name in that advertisement.
The official receiver went on to make inquiries based on the information received and established that Mr. A had received a credit card in November 1989 from one of the clearing banks. By the date of his discharge from bankruptcy, he had incurred a debt of £511·35 to the credit card company—an amount in excess of £250. The debt was later settled in full. The official receiver also established that in July 1989 Mr. A had entered into a conditional sale agreement with a finance company to purchase a motor vehicle at a total cost of £12,530. In May 1990, the account was settled to the satisfaction of the finance company.There has been no reply to the official receiver's inquiries of the building society from which the mortgage was obtained, or from another finance company.
In March 1991, the official receiver submitted a report on Mr. A's actions to the Insolvency Service. It was discussed with a lawyer from my Department's investigations division. Advice was given that the matter should not be proceeded with in the public interest, having regard to paragraph 8(i) of the code for Crown prosecutors, which my hon. Friend has quoted.
The two instances of obtaining credit discovered by the official receiver occurred within six months of Mr. A's automatic discharge as a bankrupt and both debts have been paid in full. The legal advice was based on those facts, on the absence of creditor complaints and on the lawyer's interpretation of the code for Crown prosecutors.
If my hon. Friend has further information to assist the official receiver at Hull in his inquiries into Mr. A's affairs while he was bankrupt, my Department will be pleased to receive it and investigate further. As for the question of tax that may now be owing to the Inland Revenue, I understand from what my hon. Friend said that that occurred after Mr. A's discharge from bankruptcy. It is for the Revenue to pursue the matter in its usual way.
Nevertheless, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the case, from which it appears that Mr. A violated restrictions imposed on bankrupts. During 1990, there were 255 convictions for post-bankruptcy offences, usually where creditors had complained. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that creditors are protected and offenders punished. There is no automatic immunity to prosecution for anyone: it depends on the facts of each case.
My hon. Friend has given figures for prosecution reports submitted by official receivers in 1989 and 1990,


and for the number of cases in which they assisted the police. Between 1 January and 30 June official receivers submitted 312 reports and also assisted the police and other investigatory authorities in their inquiries in 237 cases.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, a large number of directors have been disqualified under the legislation introduced by the present Government. Before that legislation, there were no such provisions.
In 1986, substantial changes were effected to insolvency legislation by the introduction of the Insolvency Act, which streamlined procedures for handling bank ruptcies and compulsory liquidations. That has enabled official receivers to concentrate more of their resources on investigating the affairs of individuals and failed companies, and on bringing disqualification proceedings against delinquent company directors.
Since 21 March 1990 the Insolvency Service has been an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry. I am pleased to say that streamlined case administration procedures have enabled official receivers

to cope with a very substantial increase in the number of compulsory insolvencies, while still being able to devote time to investigating possible wrong-doing and unfit conduct on the part of company directors.
It is important that official receivers, in conjunction with my Department's investigations division, concentrate their investigative resources on those cases which are the more serious, involving fraud and systematic dishonesty.
The evidence of the figures for prosecution reports and disqualifications, already given, is that the authorities are putting more effort than ever into the investigation of fraud and commercial misconduct. To accuse the Insolvency Service of complacency is wrong. The service plays a full part in the Government's efforts to ensure that fraud does not pay and is seen not to pay. I give a pledge to my hon. Friend that I shall carry on the task of making sure that all those involved in fraud are fully investigated and, where necessary, prosecuted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.